[1] Requirements for the establishment of forgery, such as private signature, and method of determining whether the general public is sufficient to mislead a specific person with the real signature, etc.

[2] Whether the crime of forgery, such as signature, is established in a case where a person who is not authorized to complete documents writes another person's signature, etc., regardless of the completion of the document (affirmative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of forgery, such as a private signature, and the crime of uttering such as a false investigation signature, in case where the defendant committed a crime by another person, who was examined as a suspect, and signed and sealed another person at the end of the interrogation protocol prepared by the police officer, and signed and sealed it on the confirmation document of investigation process with the name

[1] Article 239 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 239 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 239 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4478 Decided December 23, 2005 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5929 Decided January 14, 2010

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney O Young-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010No4285 Decided December 23, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the mistake of facts

In light of the records, the court below's determination that each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance is recognized on the grounds as stated in its holding is acceptable as the reasonable discretion of the fact-finding judge, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of law of violation of logical and empirical rules and free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

A. According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the assertion of presumption that the judgment of the court below did not make a judgment on the mental or physical disability is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. In order to establish the crime of forging a private signature, etc., the signature, etc. shall reach the extent that the general public may mislead the person into the authentic signature, etc. of the specific person. Whether it is sufficient for the general public to mislead the person with the authentic signature, etc. of the specific person should take into account the form and appearance of the signature, etc., preparation process, etc., as well as the necessity of the signature, etc. written in a document stating the signature, etc., preparation process, type, content, and function of the document in general transaction should also be considered and determined together. Meanwhile, where a person without authority enters another person’s signature, etc. in a document, even before the document is completed, the general public may put the other person’s signature, etc. written in the document into the authentic signature, etc., and thus, the crime of forging a signature, etc.

In addition, in cases where an investigative agency, after stating a statement of a person subject to investigation, had a person who made a statement at the end of the protocol, sign it at the front of the investigative agency, and immediately collects investigation documents at that place, the person who made the statement will be in a position to be able to inspect the document immediately between the time when the investigative agency sign it. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, such as that if the person who made the statement was able to engage in both acts of others and write another person's signature, etc., the crime of uttering, such as signature, etc., is established at the same time as the signature, etc., unless the investigative agency immediately reversed the signature, etc. before the investigation agency peruses it. As such, even if the investigative agency becomes aware that the above signature, etc. was forged immediately after the crime of uttering, such as the above investigation signature, etc., was established, the crime of uttering such as the above investigation signature

According to the records, the defendant was examined as the suspect while driving as the non-indicted, and was examined as the suspect before his status was Lane, and had the Non-indicted signed and sealed at the end of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police officer, and had a seal on the confirmation document of the investigation process wherein the name of the non-indicted was written. Thus, the court below's finding the above act of the defendant as the crime of forgery, such as a private signature, and the use of the above investigation signature as to the above act is justifiable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of misunderstanding

3. On the issue of unfair sentencing

In light of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a defendant’s assertion that the sentence of punishment is too heavy is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the defendant was sentenced to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)