Whether the act of entering the name of the defendant's client constitutes a crime of forging an official document

When the defendant opens Nonindicted 1, the defendant, who is the defendant, on which the official seal of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Do183 delivered on December 20, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 3970 delivered on December 20, 196, Supreme Court Decision 225(9)1298 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court of First Instance (69 High Court Decision 2440)

All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defendant 1 are dismissed.

The gist of Defendant 1’s grounds for appeal as to the defendant’s attorney pro-enemy’s appeal is as follows: although the court below found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged in this case’s Article, since the defendant commenced the corresponding part of this case’s accusation without any intention to forge it, this cannot be a crime, and even if not, it should be applied as a liability for the alteration of official documents. Thus, the court below erred by mistake of facts or erroneous application of the law. Thus, in full view of the evidence duly accepted by the court below, it can be acknowledged as a party member of this case’s charges. According to this acknowledged facts, the defendant already moved the non-party 1, the defendant 2, the defendant on which the defendant was placed in this accusation book, and it is deemed that the non-indicted 1, the defendant on which the defendant was placed in this accusation book, had already been detained, and thus, the important part of the document’s external shape was altered and a new official document was prepared differently from the fact that the defendant intentionally committed this crime without any authority. Thus, the court below’s judgment is legitimate and it is justified.

Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal:

As to Nonindicted 2, the lower court did not dismiss the Defendant since the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the application of the law, and thereby acquitted Nonindicted 2.

In light of the records, Nonindicted Party 1 summonedd Nonindicted Party 2 in order to investigate Nonindicted Party 1’s suspected violation of the Weighting Act by Nonindicted Party 1 who was subject to the judicial police officer of the Sungju Police Station’s handling of the case in the name of Sungju-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, who was in charge of the above accusation, and Nonindicted Party 1’s co-oper Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant 1’s co-oper Nonindicted Party 2, who was in charge of the above accusation, was in the custody of Nonindicted Party 2 (the contents of the accusation are suspected of failing to undergo the inspection of the issue in possession), and Defendant 1, who was the defendant of the above accusation, committed an intentional act of Nonindicted Party 1, who was the defendant of the above accusation, into Nonindicted Party 2, who was the defendant of the above accusation, after investigating Nonindicted Party 2 at his seat, prepared an examination report on the suspect’s confession of the above accusation, and followed Nonindicted Party 2’s opinion on the correction of the charges and the examination protocol on the suspect.

Therefore, the facts charged against the defendant are without proof, and thus the court below's disposition that acquitted the defendant is legitimate, and therefore the prosecutor's objection to appeal is not reasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor and the defendant 1's appeal are without merit, and they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and they are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)