Whether the crime of forging a private document is established in addition to the crime of forging a private document where a certificate of seal impression which is a private document is forged to obtain a certificate of seal impression which is an official document.

The phrase "certificate of seal imprint" is a private document that has already been reported by the head of the Dong Council to the effect that a specific person's seal impression who has already been reported by the head of the Dong Council is merely a person's actual seal impression, and that the seal impression which has already received the certificate is identical to the above seal impression is a private document that expresses his/her intent to request the verification that the seal impression is identical to the above seal impression. This certificate of seal imprint is separate from the official document certificate of seal imprint, or it is not a document that is separate from the official document, regardless of whether it is in a form different from or combined with the same certificate of seal imprint, and if the above private document is forged, the crime of forging private document is established independently

Articles 225 and 231 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 69Da39578, 71 Gohap302

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

75 days from the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the court below, on May 15, 1970, forged one copy of the certificate of seal impression issued by the non-indicted 1 on the part of the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that it was a separate crime because it was incorporated into the crime of forging the certificate of seal impression that was completed, and the crime of uttering of the certificate of seal impression original is established on the premise that it is not a crime. However, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the crime of forging the certificate of seal impression original is not a crime. However, the court below erred in understanding that it was two documents combined with the official document called the certificate of seal impression original and the certificate of seal impression original are two documents on one part of one part for convenience and applied the legal principles of the crime of forging the document, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: First, with respect to the facts of fraud of the non-indicted 2 at the time of original adjudication, the defendant conspiredd the non-indicted 2, a middle school dong, with his intention to punish the defendant with his own signature or 2 by fraud.

First of all, according to the reasoning for appeal by the prosecutor, the defendant's personal information at Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, about May 15, 1970 about the purpose of exercising the certificate of the personal seal impression, is stated in the original document for the certificate of the personal seal impression at Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, which is located; the seal of Non-Indicted 1, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations of the person; forged one copy of the certificate of the personal seal impression, which is a private document for the rights and obligations of the person; then, the seal of Non-Indicted 4 and the official seal of the head of Dong-dong Council at each corresponding column of the Dong-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, and forged one copy of the certificate of the personal seal impression impression for the purpose of uttering; the defendant presented the above certificate of the personal seal impression impression to Non-Indicted 2, which is a public official without knowledge about the use of the certificate; the defendant's statement at the court below and the remaining statement made by Non-Indicted 1, 76, and 7, etc.

However, the phrase "certificate of seal impression" is a private document that an individual already reported to the head of Dong with the purport that the specific seal impression is identical to that of the above certificate, and that the seal impression holder who received the certificate is different from that of the above certificate of seal impression. This certificate of seal impression consists of separate documents from the official document, or regardless of whether it is combined with the official document's certificate of seal impression, it is not a document completely separate from the official document's certificate of seal impression which is a document. The evidence presented by the court below is sufficient to acknowledge the above facts charged. Thus, if a member of the certificate of seal impression who is a private document is present within the official document's certificate of seal impression, it is not a document different from the official document's certificate of seal impression, but it is not a document different from the original document's official document's certificate of seal impression. Thus, the court below reversed the judgment and acquitted the facts that it does not constitute a crime of forging a private document.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant is omitted, and the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts of the crime and evidence admitted by a party member is to delete 2 of the facts of the crime at the time of original adjudication, and to inserting 2 of the facts of the crime as follows, as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Therefore, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts 2

The Defendant, while having been married with Nonindicted Party 1, was aware that he had a dry field of 575 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, with the knowledge that he had a dry field of 334 square meters, committed a crime by forging relevant documents on May 1, 1970, and by providing the said land as security and by borrowing money to another person.

A. On May 15, 1970, at the office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, which has jurisdiction over the domicile of Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant (in case of Dong office, from the 18th day of the same month, referring to the opening of the Dong office) where three copies of the Defendant’s certificate of seal impression have been issued, and at that time, one copy of the Defendant’s certificate of seal impression has been used in the Dong office, and at that time, one copy of the Defendant’s certificate of seal impression has been issued, and the Si office has been used in the Dong office, and the Si office has issued a pent-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the domicile address omitted the resident registration number, name, date of birth 68, 1925, September 25, 1925; on May 15, 1970; on the 19th day of the same month, Nonindicted Party 1’s certificate of seal impression affixed to the Dong office and the head of Jongno-gu, Seoul; on the 10th day of the new Dong and new 10.

B. On the 23th of the same month, at around 09:00, at the judicial branch office of the 17-3 North Changdong-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, at around 09:00, Nonindicted Party 11 had been in place of the Dong branch office of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the non-indicted 11, and the forged non-indicted 1, together with the relevant documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership, shall be delivered with one copy of the certificate of the non-indicted 1's personal seal impression (the forged non-indicted 1's personal seal impression certificate was made together with the forged non-indicted 1's personal seal impression certificate), and the non-indicted 1's real estate was requested to undergo the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership before the defendant and requested the non-indicted 1 to do so at the 34th of the same month, the non-indicted 1 may exercise the forged public documents and the private documents by submitting in a lump to the non-indicted

C. At the time and place of the above paragraph (b) above, a public official who submitted a single document as such and made a false report on the appearance of the above real estate between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, and had a public official who registered the government branch enter the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 in the original copy of the above real estate register, which is a notarial deed kept in the Dong branch, with the receipt number 3790 on May 14, 1970, and entered the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, thereby making the public official enter the false statement in the original

D. On June 16 of the same year, the above real estate was owned by Nonindicted 6, 7, and employees in charge of the loan, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 13, etc. through the head of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul branch office Dongdae branch of Choung Bank, Cho Jong-gu, Inc., 18, at the same time over several occasions, and the real estate was owned by the Defendant, and the said real estate was borrowed by collateral and money was borrowed to Nonindicted 13, etc., and the real estate was owned by the Defendant. After the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed in the front bank of the same year on July 16 of the same year, it was obtained from Nonindicted 13 to 2,00,000 won as a loan record from the above branch of Dongdaedae-gu, Seoul.

Application of Statutes

Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant's act of fraud shall be based on Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 225 of the same Act provides that the defendant's act of fraud shall be based on Article 231 of the same Act; Article 229, Article 225 of the same Act provides that the defendant's act of uttering of a forged public document shall be based on Article 234 and Article 231 of the same Act; Article 228 (1) of the same Act provides that the two multiple multiple false entries in the original notarial deed shall be based on Article 229, Article 228 (1) of the same Act; Article 228 (2) of the same Act provides that the 's act of uttering of a falsified public document' shall be based on Article 347 (1) of the same Act; Article 2 of the same Act provides that if the defendant's act of uttering of a falsified public document and the exercise of a falsified public document shall be based on Article 347 of the same Act's imprisonment.

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

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)