If the contents of an official document are changed for the purpose of exercising a copy, the nature of the crime of altering the official document.

The crime of altering an official document is established when the contents of the altered official document are changed under the purpose of using it as genuine. Therefore, the act of using a copy by attaching a small number of copies to the extent that it does not fall under other photographs on the license photograph for the purpose of exercising the copy and copying the copy of the license in the electronic reproduction machine is not an act of exercising the original license, and it does not constitute the crime of altering an official document.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2255 delivered on November 21, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below established ex officio alteration of official document under the purpose of using the altered official document itself as genuine. The defendant, based on evidence, added a pool to Nonindicted Party 1’s certificate of intention (the name of the Minister of Health and Welfare) so that he does not fall off his photograph on his photo and copied the copy of his license to put him into the electronic reproduction machine, and again, found that the original license was collected under Nonindicted Party 1’s name, and submitted the copy of the above duplicate license to report the establishment of medical institution under the name of the defendant’s operation, and it was evident that the above duplicate was produced for the purpose of exercising the above copy of the license, and that the above lawsuit was not produced for the purpose of exercising the above original license, and it was not acquitted by the record that the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below were legitimate, and that it was not unlawful after the examination of the original document and the record on the Kim Jong-chul’s statement (the record No. 128, 128, 48, 196).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)