beta
Main Issues
The degree of preparation of a document which is the object of the crime of forging a private document and the criteria for its judgment.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 231 of the Criminal Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 88Do3 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 732) Supreme Court Decision 94Do1858 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 104 delivered on October 14, 2004)
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Suwon District Court Decision 2008No3380 decided October 16, 2008
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The crime of forging a private document is established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal owner can regard it as a document genuinely prepared by the nominal owner is sufficient to mislead the general public into the authentic private document of the nominal owner. It does not necessarily require the signature or seal of the nominal owner. However, whether it is sufficient for the general public to mislead the document in the real private document of the nominal owner should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the form and appearance of the document, the preparation process, type, content, and function of the document in the ordinary transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do3, Mar. 22, 198; 2004Do3514, Oct. 14, 2004).
In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the non-indicted on the facts charged of this case on the ground that the contract for the completion of construction work of this case was prepared by the non-indicted in a genuine document and did not have sufficient form and appearance to mislead the non-indicted, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to documents subject to the crime of forging private documents and misunderstanding
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)