(a) Where a public official prepares a resident registration record card for each household whose wife is the householder upon request and keeps it in the custody of the resident registration record card for the Dong office, whether the preparation of a false official document and the crime of uttering is established (affirmative);

(b) Whether the document is an object of the crime of preparation of a false public document, where the title holder does not specify the document but it is evident that only the document itself is a re-preparationd resident registration record card with regard to the form, content, etc. of the document (affirmative);

A. Local public official Gap's act of preparing one copy of the resident registration record card for each household, which is the head of Eul and the head of Eul, even though the defendant was not the head of Eul, upon Gap's request on April 15, 1989, and was not the head of Eul's family, and keeping it in the custody of the resident registration record card for each household, from March 26, 198 to Eul, constitutes a false official document preparation and an event

(b) Where a resident registration record card prepared in a false manner does not specify the name of the person in whose name the preparation is made, but there is a statement and seal of the date of re-preparation with the householder, etc. in the form prescribed by an Act and subordinate statutes, and the seal of the head of the office is affixed to the confirmation column of the permanent domicile, and it can be known that the document itself, such as the form, content, etc. of the above document, is also prepared again by the change of the head of the household

Articles 227 and 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Choi Young-young

Gwangju High Court Decision 89No721 delivered on May 4, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the first instance court acknowledged the fact that the defendant prepared one copy of the resident identification card of the household to the head of the household and the head of the household who had not resided in the previous city for more than one year in the previous city in the previous city in order to make an application for the sale of the housing site in the Korean Land Development Corporation under the name of the head of the Dong and the head of the household, and the non-indicted 2 is entitled to make an application for the sale of the housing site in the first order. Thus, the above non-indicted 2 is the head of the household upon the request of the non-indicted 1 to make a false copy of the resident registration card of the household and its certified copy, and the non-indicted 2 was the head of the household until April 15, 1989, even though he was not the head of the household and was the head of the household, he was the head of the household, and installed one copy of the resident registration card of the same office around that time.

According to the records, although the resident registration record card of this case does not specify the name of the person responsible for preparing it, it is written in each corresponding column, such as the householder, as of March 26, 198, in accordance with the form prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, and stated in the re-preparation column as of March 26, 198, and the seal of Nonindicted 2, who is responsible for filing the report, is affixed to the letter of confirmation column, and the document itself, such as the form, content, etc., of the document itself, shall also be viewed as the document that is the object of the crime of preparing false public documents, and thus, the above public document shall be deemed as a document that is the object of the crime of preparing false public documents. It cannot be

In this case, the reason why the amount of punishment against the defendant is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal. All the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)