Whether a person who is not a public official is a crime of forging an official document if he/she leads a public official to prepare a false certificate.

Even if the Defendant reported false details to a public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of the personal seal impression and caused such public official to omit such contents in mistake, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of forging a public document because the public official who is a person with the authority to prepare the certificate of the personal seal impression with the intent to issue the certificate of the personal seal impression and affixed the seal thereto.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

A

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court (77 High Court Decision 131)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred and seventy days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged, it is not guilty that the defendant forged five copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression of the head of the Seoldong, an official document, around 14:00 on March 29, 1976, and exercised the forged official document at around 5.11 on the same year.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, and the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

First of all, the summary of the facts charged as to the fabrication and uttering of official document is about 14:0 on March 29, 1976, the defendant's act of forgingdong Office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government stated the address B, resident registration number C, name D, date of birth, and date of application on March 29, 1976 in the form of the certificate of the personal seal impression and under five copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression which are already forged and falsified in the column of the above D's seal impression and attached the power of attorney on the issuance of the above D's seal impression to prove that the public official of the government's seal impression is identical to that of the above D's seal impression, and the defendant's act of forging the five copies of the certificate of personal seal impression under the Criminal Act, which is a document to prove that the above certificate of the personal seal impression is not identical to that of the above D's official document, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the public official of the court below erred by reporting the defendant's use of the above certificate of the personal seal impression to the public official.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member is again decided.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts of a defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence shall be deleted from 2-B (the forged part of an official document) of the facts constituting the crime at the time of original sale, and the term "a forged document under paragraphs (2) and (3)" in 2-4 shall be changed to "a forged document in wartime (c)" as stated in each corresponding case of the judgment below, so all of them shall be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

applicable provisions

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code; Article 231 of the same Code; Article 234, Article 231 of the same Code; Article 234, Article 231 of the same Code; Article 228 (1) of the same Act; Article 228, Article 228 (1) of the same Act; Article 229, Article 228 (1) of the same Act; Article 229, Article 228 of the same Act; Article 228 (1) of the same Act shall apply to the case of false entry of the authentic copy of the authentic copy of the authentic document; Article 347 (1) 2 of the same Act; Article 38 (1) of the same Act shall apply to the above crime of fraud, false entry of the authentic copy of the authentic document and its exercise; Article 37 of the same Act shall apply to the above crime; Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act; Article 50 of the same Act; and Article 2 of the same Act shall apply to the above punishment within the period of imprisonment of imprisonment within 7 years;

Parts of innocence

Of the facts charged, the defendant, at around 14:00 on March 29, 1976, submitted a certificate of the personal seal impression at the Seoedong Office in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, the address of Yeongdeungpo-gu, resident registration number C, name D, date of birth, E, and date of application, 5 copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression and the letter of delegation for the issuance of the above D's certificate of the personal seal impression already forged and forged five copies of the official document's personal seal impression under the name of the head of Seoee-dong, which is the official document, by proving that it is inconsistent with the registered personal seal impression, and submitted the above certificate of the personal seal impression to other F on May 11, 1976. Thus, the above facts charged is not a crime under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Orala (Presiding Judge) only Kim Jong-sung