Punishment for a person who has changed his name in the securities of another person;

Even though the securities of one's own name belonging to another without permission are subject to the crime of causing damage to documents or preparation of false securities, it does not constitute a crime of altering securities.

Articles 214 and 217 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 78No990 delivered on June 20, 1978

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's first ground for appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the court below as to the above portion of the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the defendants' criminal facts, the co-defendants of the court below recognized that the above co-defendants of the court of first instance had a large amount of obligation among the non-indicted 2's establishment and management of Samung Machinery Industry Co., Ltd., on April 24, 1970, 31, such as non-indicted 2, etc., constitute the creditors' group by the method of solving claims, and the chairman of the above creditors' group on November 13, 1970, transferred 20,00 shares of the above company to the above co-defendants' 20,000 shares, which were owned by the above co-defendants of the court of first instance, were transferred to the above co-defendants' 4,00,000 shares to the above co-defendants' 1,000,000 shares, and the above co-defendants' shares were transferred to the above co-defendants' 14,07,0000, shares shares.

However, in order to constitute a crime of alteration of securities, there is an act of changing the securities in another person's name, and even if the securities of one's own name belongs to another person without permission, it shall not constitute a crime of alteration of securities, regardless of whether it constitutes the crime of alteration of securities, regardless of the fact that it constitutes the crime of alteration of securities or the crime of preparation of false securities. Thus, as recognized by the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of alteration of securities, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of alteration of securities, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the decision on the remaining grounds of appeal is unnecessary, and the part against the defendant in the original judgment is reversed and remanded in accordance with Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)