The nature of an offense against a person with knowledge of the fact that the person is a false official document;

The crime of uttering of false official document is established only when the official document is exercised to a person who does not know of the contents as a false official document, and the crime of uttering of false official document is not established even if it was exercised to a person who knows the contents thereof.

Articles 229 and 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do2639 delivered on January 30, 1973

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor (Defendant 2, 3, and 4) and Defendant 1, 2, 3

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 74Gohap202 decided January 1, 198

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

One hundred and twenty days of detention days after filing an appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the original court against the above accused.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four years.

150 days of confinement in the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

However, for two years, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 3 is suspended.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, the charge of exercising six false copies of resident registration, six additional copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression, three false copies of the resident registration, and three additional copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression shall be acquitted.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is that (1) the Defendant was aware of the content of the Defendant’s appeal, and only made Nonindicted Party 1 et al. known to him, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had committed money and valuables fraud, etc. from Nonindicted Party 2 and 3 by forging documents; and (2) even if not, the lower court’s sentencing is extremely unreasonable.

The gist of Defendant 2’s grounds for appeal is that (1) although the Defendant did not commit the principal offense, the lower court found Defendant guilty, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts that could affect the judgment, and (2) even if not, the lower court’s sentencing is extremely unreasonable, and thus, the lower court’s sentencing is extremely inappropriate.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3 is as follows: (1) The judgment of the court below which found Defendant 4 guilty without the intention of crime because Nonindicted 4 mispercing the fact that this private fact is true and correct is erroneous; (2) although the act of preparing and delivering a document to the person who requested the preparation of a false public document does not constitute the crime of uttering of a false public document, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 3 guilty was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, and (3) the judgment of the court below is purported that the sentencing of the court below is extremely unreasonable, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentencing of the court below against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is so unreasonable as to be too low.

Therefore, in light of the records, first of all, after examining the grounds for appeal against Defendant 1, the examination of the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records of this case, it is clear that the defendant's grounds for appeal against the defendant 1 cannot be accepted since the decision of the court below is inappropriate even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant, and the decision of the court below against the defendant is not considered to be unfair because it is too inappropriate and too unreasonable. Thus, each of the grounds for appeal against the defendant 1 cannot be accepted, since the defendant 1's grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed, and 120 days out of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the court below pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Then, in light of the records of this case, the first point of appeal by Defendant 2 is examined, and as a whole, various evidences duly adopted by the court below after examining the evidence, the facts charged by Defendant 2 can be fully recognized. Thus, there is no error of law as otherwise pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and therefore, the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

The second ground for appeal is examined in light of the following circumstances: the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below on the defendant's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Therefore, the part on the defendant in the judgment of the court below should not be reversed without any further determination on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor.

Next, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 4 was examined in light of the following circumstances: the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc.; therefore, the decision of the court below on the defendant's punishment against the defendant is considered to be too uneasible and unfair; therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant in this regard is reasonable; therefore, the part against the defendant in the judgment below should not be reversed.

The second ground for appeal by Defendant 3 is examined as follows. Since the crime of uttering of false official document is established only when the person who does not know about the contents of the false official document exercises the true document, the defendant's act of preparing a certified copy or abstract of resident registration and a certificate of personal seal impression with respect to Nonindicted 4 who did not have an interest in the U.S. upon the request of Nonindicted 1, and delivering it to Nonindicted 1 upon the request of Nonindicted 1, according to the records, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above crime of uttering cannot be established, since the above crime of uttering cannot be established, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the defendant's ground for appeal is justified. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant should not be reversed without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant or prosecutor.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part concerning Defendant 2, 3, and 4 among the judgment below shall be reversed, and the said Defendants shall be judged as follows after pleading:

The criminal facts and the summary of the evidence against the above Defendants recognized as a party member, except for the deletion of “each exercise after being delivered to Nonindicted 1 in the second time during the exhibition,” from among each of the items of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 3, as shown in the corresponding case of the court below, are the same as indicated in each of the corresponding cases of the court below, thereby admitting all of them in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 347 (1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 229, Article 225, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 239 (2), Article 30 of the Civil Act; Article 239 (1), Article 30 of the same Act; Article 30 of the same Act shall apply to the use of false public documents within the scope of punishment; Article 229 (2), Article 227, Article 30 of the same Act; Article 3 (D) of the same Act shall apply to the use of false public documents within the scope of punishment; Article 228 (1), Article 30 of the same Act; Article 28 (1), Article 30 of the same Act shall apply to the use of falsified public documents; Article 3 (5) of the same Act shall apply to the use of falsified public documents within the scope of punishment; Article 229 (1), Article 228 (1) of the same Act; Article 30 of the same Act shall apply to the use of falsified public documents within the extent of punishment; Article 27 (3) of the same Act shall apply to the above.

Of the facts charged in this case, at around 12:00 on April 16, 1974, Defendant 3 conspired with Nonindicted 1 and delivered 6 copies of the resident registration and a copy of the resident registration and a copy of the resident registration and a certificate of the personal seal impression to Nonindicted 4 prepared in the Northbuk-gu Incheon Metropolitan City office, Northern-dong office, and six copies of the resident registration and a certificate of the personal seal impression to Nonindicted 1. On April 24, 1974, the part that Defendant 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, issued to Nonindicted 1, 3, three copies of the resident registration and a copy of the resident registration and a copy of the resident registration and a certificate of the personal seal impression to Nonindicted 4 prepared at the above date and place, was carried out by Nonindicted 1, as stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the exercise against Defendant 3, without any evidence that Nonindicted 1 believed that the above documents were true, is not guilty pursuant to Article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)