[1] The elements to constitute a "suspect" in the crime of forging counterfeit evidence under Article 155(3) of the Criminal Code

[2] The time when a judicial police officer can be deemed to have committed a crime

[1] Article 15 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 21 of the former Rules on Administrative Affairs of Judicial Police Officers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 710 of July 19, 2010) (see current Article 21 and attached Form 13), Articles 195 and 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 89Do648 delivered on June 20, 1989 (Gong1989, 1105) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2968 delivered on October 26, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2633)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Law Firm member, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No3445 Decided December 10, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 2’s charges of aiding and abetting each other’s ambiguous evidence, except the charges of Articles 18 and 118 of the Madio Madio Madio

Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act provides that "any person who destroys, conceals, forges, or alters evidence concerning another person's criminal or disciplinary case, or uses forged or altered evidence shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding seven million won." Article 155(3) of the Criminal Act provides that "any person who commits a crime under paragraph (1) with the intent to injure the defendant, suspect, or suspect shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years." In light of the language and text of the provision, legislative purpose, and the principle of strict interpretation of penal law, etc., it is necessary that an investigation is initiated in order to be "suspect" as provided in Article 155(3) of the Criminal Act, and even if there is a high possibility that it may be charged at the preceding stage, such circumstance alone does not constitute "suspect". Meanwhile, if a judicial police officer is aware of a crime, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a crime under Article 210 of the Rules on Judicial Police Officers' Duties, and thus, it shall not be deemed that an investigation was conducted by a judicial Police Officer 298.

The court below acknowledged facts based on its adopted evidence, and held that the non-indicted 1 and 2, who are the object of aiding and abetting, were arrested by the police on May 18, 2007 in this part of the facts charged, and they did not have the suspect's status as the date and time indicated in each of the facts charged. In light of the above legal principles, the court below's recognition and judgment is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of counterfeit evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the fact-finding of the court below is problematic is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

2. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion) against Defendant 2 on May 19, 2007 and the charges of aiding and abetting Evidence of Defendant 1

This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit due to the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the lower judgment. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)