[1] Whether the crime of alteration of securities against forged securities is established (negative)

[2] The crime of changing the face value of a promissory note without authority (=the crime of altering securities)

[1] In the crime of alteration of securities, the term "an alteration" means that a person, who is not authorized to do so, shall not harm the identity of the securities. Thus, even if a person had already altered the entries of a promissory note forged by another person without authority, the alteration of securities shall not be established.

[2] The alteration of the face value of a promissory note without authority is merely an alteration of the securities and is not an alteration of the securities, and thus, the act of changing the face value of a promissory note without authority cannot be deemed as a alteration of new securities separate from the original forgery.

[1] Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1862 delivered on November 27, 1984 (Gong1985, 103) Supreme Court Decision 86Do1984 delivered on November 11, 1986 (Gong1987, 51 delivered on January 10, 2003) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6553 Delivered on January 10, 2003

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 2 and one other

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2005No396 Decided June 16, 2005

The prosecutor's appeal and Defendant 2's appeal are all dismissed.

1. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the facts constituting the crime of this case against the defendant 2 can be fully recognized, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation in the judgment below and erroneous finding facts against the rules

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In the crime of alteration of securities, the alteration means that a person, who is not authorized to the contents of securities which have been duly formed, makes a change to the extent that does not harm the identity of the securities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1862, Nov. 27, 1984; 2001Do6553, Jan. 10, 2003). Thus, even if a person had already changed without authority the contents of a promissory note forged by another person, the alteration of securities does not constitute a crime of alteration of securities.

In addition, changing the face value of a promissory note without authority is merely an alteration of securities, and it does not constitute a forgery of securities. Therefore, the act of changing the face value of a promissory note without authority can not be deemed a forgery of new securities separate from the original forgery.

Supreme Court Decision 82Do677 Decided June 22, 1982 Decided June 22, 1982 held that an act of completing a forged bill by entering an amount without authority on the face value column of a counterfeited promissory note with blank blank space constitutes a crime of forging securities separate from the initial forgery act. Thus, the issue of this case cannot be a proper precedent.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant 1 on the act of arbitrarily changing the column for the amount of a forged promissory note is just, and the prosecutor's appeal on the premise that the face value of the forged promissory note falls under the category of new securities injury shall not be accepted

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Prosecutor’s appeals and Defendant 2’s appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)