(a) Forgery of securities;

(b) In case of delivery of a forged bill into performance of existing obligations, the nature of fraud;

A. The number of crimes of forging securities is, in principle, determined based on the purchase of forged securities. Therefore, the forgery of two promissory notes is not a single comprehensive crime but a concurrent crime.

B. Fraud is not established because, as if a promissory note is a genuine promissory note, even if the promissory note was delivered to the creditor for the repayment of the purchase-price obligation, the obligation for the purchase-price is not extinguished unless the promissory note is settled.

(a) Articles 37 and 214(b) of the Criminal Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Do1759 delivered on September 28, 1982

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 2 and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Hong-chul

Seoul District Court Decision 81No5494, 82No1986 decided September 3, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant forged two promissory notes in the name of the non-indicted Jae-young, and in light of the records, there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of the evidence preparation which was conducted in the above fact-finding, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the forgery of securities and the crime of uttering

In addition, the number of crimes of forging securities is, in principle, determined on the basis of the purchase of forged securities, and the original judgment which considered the forgery of the two promissory notes as concurrent crimes is just, and the original judgment cannot be considered as a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing in the case of which imprisonment is sentenced for six months.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person, making a mistake, and thereby acquiring property or pecuniary advantage (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do1734, Sep. 29, 1970). Thus, the court below's decision that the defendants did not establish a crime of fraud is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles of fraud, since the defendants' obligation to pay for the goods is not extinguished unless the bill is settled, even if the defendants delivered the forged promissory note to the creditor for the repayment of the amount of the goods payment, as if it were the true promissory note.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)