beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's statement is not yet complete and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes "documents used by public offices," which are the objects of the crime of damage to public documents, since it is not yet effective as a public document.
In addition, the police officer who has heard the defendant's statement in the complaint, consistent with the authoritative attitude, led the defendant to tear the statement, and arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of damaging public documents, and did not notify the defendant of his right to refuse to make statements, right to appoint counsel, etc., so it is improper to punish the defendant as the same day.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The crime of damage to public documents under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act is a type of interference with public duties to protect public duties as a state function. As such, if the document is currently used by a public office, the written statement prepared by the police is complete and the person who prepared the document and made the statement are not signing, sealing, or stamped, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is not a document used by a public office under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, even though it is not effective as an official document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do2799, Apr. 14, 1987; 2003Do3945, May 25, 2006); and there is no reason to view that it is possible to output the same form of document equally depending on the development of electronic information technology, such as a computer and a printer, etc.
In addition, the defendant's signature is also affixed to the statement column of this case.
(37 pages of the investigation record) The grounds that the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender and did not notify the defendant of his right to refuse to make statements can be the grounds that affect the admissibility of evidence collected by the defendant during the arrest.