Whether the invalidated official document constitutes a crime of unlawful uttering of official document

In the case of unlawful uttering of official document, the official document, which is the object of the unlawful uttering of official document, is not limited to only effective, but also has its effect.

Article 230 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Incheon District Court Decision 74Gohap57, 74Gohap96 decided Feb. 1, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the sentence of the original instance.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that there is an error of misunderstanding the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment. In other words, the defendant, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, used a forged number plate such as the time of original adjudication or used a falsified number plate, or obtained money by deceiving the non-indicted 2, all of them do not commit an act by the non-indicted 1 alone, and the non-indicted 1 paid taxes on the scrapped vehicle by deceiving the non-indicted 2, and the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable. Second, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the attorney is that the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable. First, although the defendant did not commit an act of using a forged number plate such as the time of original adjudication, or an unlawful act of using a falsified number plate or a crime of fraud, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the use of a falsified number plate, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the unlawful use of a falsified number plate by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's unlawful use of the document.

First of all, in light of the records, the evidence adopted by the court below through legitimate examination of facts against the defendant and his defense counsel, since it can be sufficiently recognized the defendant's violation of the Road Transport Vehicle Act, unlawful uttering of official document and fraud against the defendant at the time of original adjudication, this ground for appeal cannot be accepted. Furthermore, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant can be found to use the forged vehicle number plate in collusion with the non-indicted 1 on the vehicle (vehicle number omitted) and use it on the vehicle (vehicle number omitted), and it can be recognized that the defendant had operated it from February 28, 1974 to March 3 of the same year. Thus, it is without merit under the premise that there was no relationship between the defendant and his defense counsel at the time of attaching the above phone number plate. Further, it is not always effective, since the official document, each object of the crime of unlawful uttering of official document, becomes invalid, it cannot be accepted since the appeal is not accepted. Furthermore, as to the argument of unreasonable sentencing of the defendant and defense counsel, the motive of the defendant, damage to the defendant, the defendant's age of punishment.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and one hundred twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal is made in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the sentence of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)