[1] The meaning of "relic" which is an object of larceny

[2] The case holding that a copy of the original register of shareholders which copied the original register of shareholders constitutes the property which can be the object of larceny

[3] Whether the reproduction of a document constitutes a document which is the object of the crime of forging a document (affirmative), and whether the crime of forging a document is established in a case where a copy of the authentic document was forged while copying it (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that where a copy of a resident registration certificate of another person was created entirely separate from a copy of another person's resident registration certificate using a computer, it constitutes a crime of forging and uttering an official document

[1] Article 329 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 329 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 225 and 237-2 of the Criminal Act / [4] Articles 225, 229, and 237-2 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do3057 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1939) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2855 delivered on September 5, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2155)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Im-soo

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004No2146 delivered on July 21, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Property, which is the object of larceny, does not necessarily need to have an objective monetary exchange value, and it is sufficient that the owner or possessor has a subjective value. In this case, the existence of a subjective or economic value is not established in a passive relationship that makes it not used by others (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do3057 delivered on May 10, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above documents constitute property subject to larceny, since the defendant's 70 copies of the paper in which the defendant stolen's shareholder list was stored in the victim company, using a copy of the original shareholder list, and even if the above documents were copied by the original shareholder list, the above documents were those recorded in the victim company's shareholder list and were destroyed by the victim company to prevent the leakage of the personal information, etc. recorded in the above documents at the time of arranging the shareholder list to the outside. Thus, the court below determined that the above documents constitute property that can be subject to larceny, since they constitute property that can be subject to larceny, as well as subjective values that can be subject to ownership in the victim company.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to property which is the object of larceny, as otherwise alleged.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Pursuant to Article 237-2 of the Criminal Act, a copy of a document reproduced using an electronic reproduction apparatus, facsimile or other similar apparatus has the same meaning as the original document also constitutes a document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering. The reproduction of a copy of the authentic document by means of an electronic reproduction apparatus and making it entirely different from the contents of the copy by means of partial manipulation is an act of creating a separate document copy which is likely to impair public credit (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2855, Sept. 5, 200, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the above, in light of the above legal principles and records, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to Article 482(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in cases where an appeal is filed by a defendant or a person other than the defendant, when the judgment of the court below is reversed, the number of detention days before the judgment of the court below is included in the original sentence. As long as the court below reversed the part concerning crimes 2 through 4 in the judgment of the court of first instance, the total number of detention days before the judgment of the court of first instance is included in the original sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the ground of appeal that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 57 of the Criminal Act by

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)