Whether the crime of altering an official document and the crime of uttering of an altered official document is established where a person without authority voluntarily stated the column for the use of the certificate of seal impression (negative)

According to Article 12(1) of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17867 of Dec. 31, 2002), and the provisions of statutes on the application for the certification of seal imprint and the issuance of a certificate, where the purpose of use is to sell real estate, an applicant shall enter the name (in the case of a corporation, the name of the corporation), address, and resident registration number of the purchaser in the real estate purchaser column, but in other cases, the applicant shall use the certificate directly as at the time of the application, and if necessary, the applicant shall be allowed to use the certificate. Since the previous provisions on the effective period of the certificate of seal imprint pursuant to the purpose of use are deleted and there is no difference in the effective period, the entry in the column for use of the certificate of seal imprint has no relation with the portion certified by the head of the Dong, which is the certification agency. Thus, even if an unauthorized person has voluntarily written the entry in the column for use of the certificate, it cannot be deemed that the content of the public official document or public office is altered.

Articles 225 and 229 of the Criminal Act; Article 12(1) of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act; Article 13 of the former Certification of Seal Imprint Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17867 of December 31, 2002)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-gu (Defendant 1)

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No3382 delivered on April 20, 2004

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

Examining the evidence set out in the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant 1 guilty on the charge of forging private documents, uttering of investigation documents, alteration of private documents, alteration of private documents, uttering of altered private documents, false entry in the original of notarial deeds, and exercise of the original of notarial deeds, among the facts charged against the defendant 1 in this case, shall be justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to Article 12(1) of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17867, Dec. 31, 2002) and the provisions of statutes on the application for the certification of seal imprint and the issuance of a certificate, in applying for the certification of seal imprint, where the purpose of use is for real estate sale, the applicant’s name (in the case of a corporation, the name of the corporation), address, and resident registration number shall be stated in the column for real estate purchaser; however, in other cases, the applicant shall be allowed to use the certificate directly, if necessary, and there is no difference in the effective period due to the deletion of the previous provisions on the effective period of the certificate of seal imprint, and therefore, there is no relation with the portion certified by the head of the Dong, which is the certification agency.

Therefore, even if a person without authority voluntarily stated a statement in the column for the use of a certificate of seal impression, it cannot be deemed that the content of the documents of a public official or a public office changed and thus the new probative value is written. Therefore, the crime of altering a public document or uttering of an altered public document premised thereon is not established.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the facts charged for the alteration of the official document of this case and the uttering of the altered official document constitute a case where "the defendant conspired to do so without the consent of the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the "70m2" stated in the column for the use of the two copies of the certificate of this case issued by the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, the "70m2 for the use of the land (70m2)" as the "135m2 for the use of the certificate of this case, and submitted it to the public official of the branch office of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, for the purpose of using the two copies of the certificate of this case."

The Supreme Court Decision 85Do1490 delivered on September 24, 1985 cited in the ground of appeal states that a person who intends to obtain a certificate of seal imprint shall submit an application stating the purpose of use to the certification agency, and if a certificate of seal imprint is issued according to the purpose of use, it is related to the issue at the time when the former Enforcement Decree of the certificate of seal imprint (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11715 delivered on June 29, 1985), which stipulates that the term of validity of the certificate of seal imprint is changed according to what the purpose of use is stated, and it is not appropriate to invoke it in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment below erred

3. As to Defendant 2’s appeal

Defendant 2 did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period and did not contain any statement in the petition of grounds for appeal, and thus, the appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the appeal shall be dismissed by decision in relation to Defendant 1’s case.

4. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)