The nature of the crime of so-called and the crime of uttering, which is delivered to a person who knows that it is forged securities (affirmative)

Even if the delivery was made to the person who knows that it is forged securities, if the delivery was made with the awareness that the delivery would be to communicate it, the delivery act itself constitutes the crime of uttering of forged securities because it might prejudice the distribution order of securities.

Article 217 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1011 Decided September 27, 1966

Defendant 1 and one other

2. As to the public prosecutor (as to the defendant 1):

Attorney Lee Jae-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No2755 delivered on July 30, 1981

The part concerning Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

(1) Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 1 received 40,000 won at the time of original adjudication and delivered 3 forged bills, such as the first time at the time of original adjudication, to the co-defendants of the court below at least 3 times as indicated in the facts charged, but on the premise that the crime of uttering of forged securities is established only when the forged securities are used as if they were genuine or true securities, under the premise that the crime of uttering of forged securities is established, Defendant 1 was well aware that each of the above promissory notes was forged, and thus, it cannot be recognized that Defendant 1 used these promissory notes as if they were true or true, and thus, each of these deliverys was acquitted on the ground that they did not constitute the crime of uttering of

However, the punishment purpose of the crime of uttering of forged securities is to protect the credibility of documents simply to the extent that it is intended to protect the distribution order of securities, and unlike the crime of forging or uttering of public documents, as if the delivery of forged securities was a genuine or true securities, and if the delivery was made by the delivery to the person who knows that it was a forged securities, the act of delivery itself is likely to harm the distribution order of securities, and thus, there is sufficient reason and necessity for punishment. Thus, the crime of uttering of forged securities is established (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do1011 delivered on September 27, 1966). (See Supreme Court Decision 66Do101 delivered on September 27, 1966) According to the evidence rejected by the court below, the joint defendants who received the above bills from Defendant 1 can have known the fact that all the defendants distributed them, and there are many materials that the defendant knew that they would have been distributed as such at the time of the above delivery, the court below should have further examined such facts, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as above.

(2) Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence cited by the court of first instance by comparing the records, the court below's decision that recognized the facts constituting an offense against Defendant 2 is just, and it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting an offense without any evidence. The arguments are groundless.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed and remanded, and the appeal by Defendant 2 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young