(a) Whether recognizing the alteration of an official document as a forgery of an official document affects the judgment;

(b) The case holding that no violation of the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act does not adversely affect the judgment;

A. Since the forgery and alteration of an official document are the same as the nature of the crime or punishment, recognizing the alteration of an official document as the forgery of an official document would be erroneous in the application of the statute, but this does not affect the judgment.

B. Although the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act does not apply to aggravation of repeated crime, if the sentence is three years, the illegality does not affect the judgment.

Articles 225 and 42 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do2681 Delivered on March 9, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 9475 delivered on April 12, 1957, Supreme Court Decision 4290Do85 delivered on April 12, 1957, Supreme Court Decision 19Da105 delivered on March 9, 197, Supreme Court Decision 42(2)1253

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (76Gohap176)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days from among the detention days prior to the imposition of judgment in the trial after an appeal shall be included in the punishment of the original court.

The gist of the defendant's appeal is that the sentencing of the court below which sentenced three years to the defendant is too unreasonable, and the above sentencing of the court below is reasonable and it is not unfair because it is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions against the defendant, especially the means, methods and criminal records of the defendant, which are recognized by the records of this case.

However, the court below found that the defendant removed his photograph attached to his resident registration certificate of the non-indicted and forged his resident registration certificate of the Jinan-gun, a public document, with the defendant's photograph attached thereto, but the above facts clearly correspond to the alteration of the public document, but the forgery or alteration of the public document is stipulated in Article 225 of the Criminal Act, which is the same law, so the crime is identical in nature or punishment, so the judgment below recognized as forgery of the public document is erroneous in the application of the law, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 4290No52 delivered on April 12, 1957). However, the court below ruled that this case of the defendant did not affect the judgment by the above explanation (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Ma52 delivered on April 12, 1957) because it constitutes habitual fraud under Articles 351 and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment ex officio by the court below.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is clearly well-grounded, it is dismissed without pleading pursuant to Article 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and according to Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 100 days out of the detention days prior to the final judgment after the appeal shall be included in the sentence of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)