Whether an alteration of a forged document constitutes a crime

Since a forged document itself has the risk of undermining the credibility of the public in the document and the alteration of the non-essential part alone does not create a risk of undermining the credibility of the group's new public service, the alteration of the forged document is not a crime.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court (74Gohap138) in the first instance

Of the judgment of the court below, the conviction against Defendant 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

70 days from the detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final decision.

Of the facts charged, the alteration of the official document against Defendant 2 and the charge of the event shall be acquitted.

The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is as follows: First, the defendants' statements at the prosecutor's office and court, the police and court's statements at the non-indicted 1's police and court, etc. are sufficient to prove the crime; however, the court below acquitted the defendants on the ground that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts that may affect the judgment in the part of the judgment of the court below; second, the amount of the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendants 2 is too uneasible.

Therefore, it is clear that the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 by Defendant 1 is not acceptable, in light of the following circumstances, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of the above defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime.

Then, in light of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal against the defendant 2, the court below found the defendant 2 not guilty on the original of the notarial deed, since the above deceased's name transfer registration procedure on November 17, 1972 was applied to non-indicted 2 prior to the death of the deceased non-indicted 3 after obtaining a certificate of a seal imprint on November 17, 1972. Thus, unless there is any counter-proof, it can be acknowledged that the above deceased's donation of the above real estate was made to the defendant before the death, and some testimonys in the investigation agency and court of the witness non-indicted 4 and 1 are presumed only to be abstract. Thus, even if the above defendant completed the transfer registration procedure of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant in the above defendant after the death of the above defendant, this is consistent with the actual relation, and thus, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as to the original notarial deed and its exercise of the notarial deed, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as otherwise alleged in the judgment.

Then, prior to examining the prosecutor's grounds for appeal against the defendant 2, the court below examined the second reasons for appeal. Among the facts of the third party's (2) (3) of the indictment in this case, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part of the defendant's appeal against the defendant 2 as to the defendant's use of the altered document as of Nov. 27, 1972, which was the date of issuance of one copy of the above certificate of counterfeited seal imprint on Apr. 18, 1973, and the altered document as of Nov. 27, 1972. The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining part of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part of the judgment below against Defendant 2 is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided again by a party member.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

In addition to deletion of the facts of the crime No. 3-A and No. 3-B of the judgment of the court below, the criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are stated in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below. Thus, all of them are cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Of the judgment below of Defendant 2, Article 225 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the facts of fraud of Article 3 of the judgment below are as follows: Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347 of the same Act provides that the defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that the above two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act; thus, the defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year within the scope of the punishment imposed on the fabrication of public documents, of which the punishment is heavier than the punishment imposed under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act; Article 57 of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 70 days during the period of detention before the sentence of the judgment below is included in the above punishment and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the beginning of the sentence.

(not guilty Part)

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the alteration of the official document and the execution of the same is that "Defendant 2 changed on Apr. 18, 1973 from Nov. 27, 1972 to Nov. 27, 1973 as of Nov. 27, 1973, the date when the defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression of Nonindicted 3 for the purpose of uttering at home, and changed one copy of the certificate of personal seal impression of Samsung Dong's Samsung Dong's name and submitted it to the Daejeon District Telecommunications Office for the same time and exercised the above altered official document" among the facts charged in this case. As examined in the reasons for reversal, the above certificate of personal seal impression is a forged official document and does not constitute a crime of altering the forged document, and thus, it is not guilty of the above facts charged in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)