If the seal to be used in preparing the document of the holder of a title deed with the consent of the holder of a title deed is discovered, but the seal is not used, and the seal is returned to the holder without the consent;

The crime of forging a seal under Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Code shall be recognized as unlawful in violation of the will of the person in title, and even if the person in title did not obtain the consent of the person in title at the time of seeing another's seal, if the seal was blind of the intention to use it in preparing the document of the person in title with the consent of the person in title, but it was returned to the person in title without the consent of the person in title, barring any special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there was the objective of uttering, unless there is a special reason.

Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-young

Suwon District Court Decision 91No1587 delivered on May 28, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendant was aware of the seal of the Park Jong-ok, the victim of the traffic accident in this case, by allowing the Non-Indicted Party to grant permission, is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing.

2. However, the crime of forging a seal under Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act shall be recognized to be unlawful in violation of the will of the person in title, and even if the person in title did not obtain the consent of the person in title at the time of seeing another's seal, if the seal was removed from the seal to be used in preparing the document of the person in title, and if the seal was returned to the person in title without the consent of the person in title because it was impossible to obtain the consent of the person in title, it cannot be recognized that there was the purpose of uttering, barring special circumstances.

3. According to the records, the defendant was hospitalized in Seoul, which was the victim of the traffic accident of this case, and it was impossible for the police (UPS police station) to enter Seoul, so he was aware of the seal of this case to be used upon his consent. The above victim did not use the seal of this case without obtaining the consent from the victim, and the victim's speech after completing a business trip investigation at a hospital in the o'clock day. (Examination protocol of the Police, Investigation Record, Investigation Record, 56 pages, 105 pages), the above allowed time statement was made to the same effect (The record of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation, Investigation Record, Investigation Record, 105 pages), and the above victim stated that he was sent the seal of this case to the victim (the second statement, Investigation Record, 66 pages of the police officer's second statement, investigation record, etc.). Thus, it is difficult for the defendant to use the seal of this case with the victim's testimony of this case for the purpose of avoiding the victim and the victim's testimony of this case.

In this case, according to the defendant's mind, it is impossible to prepare the above victim's statement or to prepare and submit the statement in its name. This is only possible with the police officer, and in light of the circumstances and results of the accident in this case, it does not appear that it is necessary for the defendant to force the police officer to ask for such unreasonable demand. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant made such a demand or that the police officer received such demand.

In addition, if the defendant asked the victim's intention to use the seal with his/her consent, it cannot be deemed that there was the purpose of illegally exercising the seal.

4. Therefore, the purpose of the judgment of the court of first instance was to use the seal of the defendant illegally, and the fact that the defendant's failure to use it was due to the fact that the investigative police officer did not use the seal as the defendant's intention, and thus, the court below's action maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, which was punished by the crime of forging the seal under Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act, is erroneous in the rules of evidence or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of forging the seal, which led to an incomplete deliberation. The grounds for appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)