Whether the photograph of a driver's license is the crime of forging documents, in case where the photograph of another person is removed and the photograph is attached.

An act of removing a driver's license's photograph and attaching another's photograph shall be deemed to constitute a crime of forgery of a document, and it shall not be deemed an alteration of a document.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Du52 delivered on April 12, 1957 (Dakhh 4540 of Supreme Court Decision, Decision 225(2)1297 of the Criminal Act, Decision 383(22)1487 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Incheon District Court Decision 73 High Court Decision 73Gohap11)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

One hundred-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The parts attached to a defendant's photograph from among seized driver's licenses (certificate 1) shall be discarded.

The above license shall be returned to the non-indicted victim.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below is unreasonable because the amount of the punishment imposed on the defendant is too unfasible. The judgment of the court below ex officio is indicated as the driver's license without specifying the person who prepared the document, which is the object of the forgery of the document, in the statement of criminal facts, and the act of removing the photograph of the driver's license and attaching another's photograph is the forgery of the document. However, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the driver's license (No. 1) seized as the stolen document (the document was changed at the trial) is obvious that the reason to return it to the victim is obvious, the decision of the court below is not a violation of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be deemed that there is a violation of the law as to the above grounds for appeal. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and it is decided again.

(Criminal Facts)

The defendant is a person who has no fixed occupation.

1. On November 12, 1972, 12:00, the first-class driver’s license number 3-08203 in the name of the Gyeonggi-do Governor who is ordinarily owned by the Dong-do Governor and lost the age of 26 who is the non-indicted driver, who is the non-indicted 26 years of age at the taxi parking lot located in the Dong-dong, Jungcheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

2. On the same day, using a driver’s license obtained above at the defendant’s residence of the Nam-gu sublime (hereinafter omitted), of the same day, the person’s photograph attached to the non-indicted’s license is removed for the purpose of exercising the defendant’s idea to drive, and the person’s photograph is removed at that place together with the defendant’s photograph, and the person’s license appears to have been delivered lawfully by the defendant; and

3. At the request of police officers on the street in front of the Korean traditional parking lot located near the Seoul East Station on December 12, 1972, while holding a forged certificate of license for display and being employed as a driver of the Incheon taxi (vehicle number omitted), the person presents and events the certificate of license at the request of police officers on the street in front of the Korean traditional parking lot located near the Seoul East Station on the date

4. From the beginning of December 1972 to the beginning of January 1973, 1973, a policeman of the first time of January 1, 1973 would drive the above-mentioned driver's license at a member of the Incheon City, while driving his business without a license.

(Abstract of Evidence)

The evidence of each of the above facts constituting the crime is identical to the statement of the court below except where the statement of the defendant is added in the process of the party. Thus, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "the court below's ruling" 1 provides that the so-called "the so-called" of Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 229 and Article 225 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the so-called "the crime" of Article 3 of the same Act, and Article 4 provides that the so-called "the crime" of Article 75 (1) 4 and Article 55 of the Road Traffic Act shall apply to the demonstration of the act after the revision of the Act. According to the trial law, Article 75 (1) 1, Article 38, and Article 55 of the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 2591), Article 1 (2) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that "the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for the purpose of returning the above Article 3 of the same Act and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the purpose of returning the above Article 17 (1) of the same Act." Since the same Act provides that the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor for forfeiture of the above shall be excluded.

Judge Regular (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-jin-gu