(a) Whether the crime of forging a private document is established where a document in the name of the private person is prepared;

B. Whether the crime of forging a private document is established even if the document under Paragraph (a) is consistent with the substantive legal relationship

(c) Whether the act of presenting a copy of the forged document constitutes the crime of uttering of the falsified falsified document;

A. Even if a document in the name of a private person has forged it, it does not constitute a crime of forging a private document, or if a document in the name of a private person was prepared in the name of the private person, as if it was prepared during his/her lifetime, the document would constitute a crime of forging a private document, if the date of preparation was

(b) Even if the document in subsection (a) is consistent with the substantive legal relationship, if the person who prepared the document does not consent to the document, the crime of forging the private document is still established.

(c)an offence of uttering of a falsified document is established even if it presents to another person a copy reproduced by mechanical means.

Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1418), 92Do232 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 661), Supreme Court Decision 93Do2143 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3023), Supreme Court Decision 94Do4 delivered on March 222, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1376)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Long-term

Daejeon District Court Decision 93No149 delivered on June 3, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court was justifiable to maintain the first instance court’s measure acknowledged by the evidence cited in the Defendant’s judgment, and did not err by violating the rules of evidence by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, such as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Of the grounds for

2. Even if a document in the name of a private person is forged, it does not constitute a crime of forging a private document, but if a document in the name of the private person was prepared in the name of the private person as if it was prepared during his/her survival, the crime of forging a private document is established (see Supreme Court Decision 73Do138, Oct. 23, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1500, Oct. 25, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1500, Oct. 25, 1983; etc.). Even if the document conforms to his/her substantive legal relationship, if the document is made without the consent of the person who prepared the document, the crime of forging a private document is still established, and even if the document copied by a mechanical method and presented a copy to another person, the crime of uttering a private document is established. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below in accordance with this purport does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of forging a private document and the crime of uttering a private document.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)