[1] The meaning of "the purpose of causing an error in the management of affairs" in the crime of writing or alteration of a prior recording of a person

[2] The case holding that in a case where a person who is authorized to write letters from the installer and operator of a car page opened on the Internet portal site prepares and posts a false article on his/her ID by accessing the above car page, it is difficult to recognize the purpose of his/her excessive handling of affairs by the installer and operator of the above car page

[1] Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 232-2 and 234 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-sik

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2007No1294 Decided December 21, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act provides, “A person who falsifies or alters, with the intention to mislead the management of affairs, special media records, such as other person’s electronic records concerning rights, duties, or certificates of fact, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” Here, electronic records do not independently have objective and solid meaning and do not independently, but perform the intended function by using them in a system established and operated by an individual or corporation for the purpose of creating, processing, storing, and printing information through electronic means. Thus, “the purpose to mislead the management of affairs” means to mislead the management of affairs of a person who installs and operates the above system by using the forged or altered electronic records (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6132, Jun. 9, 2005, etc.).

However, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charges that “the Defendant had access to the Internet portal site’s “Niberian Apartment apartment complex” established by some residents opposing the Defendant’s “Korea-U.S. Round,” and then had access to the Internet portal site’s “Korea-U.S. Round,” thereby making it difficult to conduct the business of the “North Korea-U.S. Roundo apartment complex,” and recorded the contents of the prosecution as stated in the contents of the prosecution, thereby forging the electronic records in the name of the above original Round regarding the certificate of fact, and exercised the electronic records forged as above at that time.”

However, in light of the above legal principles, in order for the defendant to apply the above electronic records to the above act of using the above electronic records as a prior crime of fraud, the defendant must have an intention to obstruct the defendant's business affairs of the installer and operator of the above camera or the above site. The facts charged in this case are only stated that the defendant committed such act for the purpose of causing the above office affairs of the committee.

In addition, according to the records, it can be known that the electronic records of this case, which the defendant, obtained the right of the non-indicted person who is the person in charge of the installation and operation of the above car page to post a letter on the above car page, prepared and posted such electronic records as the defendant's ID "(Adi omitted)" and was established by some residents opposing the above council of occupants' representatives, such as the non-indicted, etc., and that the electronic records of this case, the defendant, who declared a neutral position, can show that the above car page, which had declared a neutral position, can be seen as a view against the above council of occupants' representatives. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant, even if the defendant prepared and posted the electronic records of false contents on the above car page, there was an intention to mislead the defendant to handle the affairs of the person who installed and operated the above car page or the above site.

Therefore, as long as it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had an intention to obstruct the administration of affairs by the owner of the installation and operation of the above camera or the above site, the defendant cannot be charged with the crime of aiding and abetting electronic records, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of aiding and abetting electronic records and the crime of uttering of the above copying electronic records. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)