(a) Where a copy of a forged document is submitted to obtain improper refund of value-added tax, the nature of the crime of uttering of forged document;

B. Whether the court of final appeal against the judgment of the court below after remand is bound by the grounds for reversal of the judgment of the case remanded

A. Since there is no proof that the Defendant submitted the original document and the use of the forged official document and the falsified official document submitted by the Defendant for the wrongful refund of value-added tax were all copies of the falsified official document or the falsified official document, and the seal of the public official in charge of the original document was affixed with false certification without comparison, it does not constitute a crime of uttering of the falsified official document and the falsified

B. The legal judgment of the court of final appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed shall not be binding upon the original judgment remanded, nor shall the appellate court of final appeal take any other opinion in accordance with this.

A. Articles 229 and 234 of the Criminal Act; Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act; Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do383 Delivered on April 18, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Sang-won

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1429 delivered on September 24, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding the facts charged in the lawsuit that the defendant submitted the forged official document and the original of the falsified investigation document to the public official in charge of the collection of taxes in order to receive the unfair refund of value-added tax, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no proof that the defendant confirmed the fact that all the forged official document or the original of the falsified investigation document submitted by the defendant was a copy and the public official in charge of the comparison with the original document was a false authentication without any comparison, and that there was no evidence that the public official in charge of the comparison with the original document was a false authentication and submitted the original document without any comparison. In light of the records, the court below's examination of the process of the preparation of evidence which

2. The judgment of the court below that a copy or a copy of a document shall not be the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering under the Criminal Act, unless a copy or a copy is certified by mechanical methods, and that the facts charged of the lawsuit concerning fraudulent fraud and the crime of aiding and abetting the Petroleum Business Act are unlawful because there is no specific statement of fact meeting the principal offender's criminal composition or it is not certain, and therefore the partial public prosecution is not appropriate. However, the judgment of the court below is based on the judgment of the court below which states that the party member should reverse the original judgment before remand, but the party member cannot take another opinion by binding it. Thus, the above legal judgment of the court below which states on the grounds of reversal of the judgment of the court below prior to remand cannot take another opinion because it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to documents that are the object of the crime of forging documents under the Criminal Act and the crime of uttering, and the legal principles as to Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the above legal principles as to binding force.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)