Whether a reproduction document constitutes a document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering.

The so-called reproduction document, which is a document which copied the original by mechanical means using a reproduction machine, photographer, facsimile, etc., is also a copy, which is the document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering.

Articles 231 and 234 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1418) Supreme Court Decision 92Do226 Decided November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 316) Supreme Court Decision 94Do4 Decided March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1376)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-young

Busan District Court Decision 95No1486 delivered on September 20, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. 80 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of forging a copy of the victim's gambling name, which is a private document, and submitted it to the court for the purpose of exercising the right, and using it. It cannot be said that there is an error of law by failing to conduct a trial like the theory of lawsuit, or by failing to explain the reasons to be specified in the judgment, as it is against the rules of evidence, or by failing to explain the facts against the rules of evidence. It is not acceptable as it is merely against the selection of evidence and criticism of the facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below.

In addition, even if a copy of a document is a copy of the so-called document, which is a document which copied by mechanical means using a copy, photographer, facsimile, etc., even among copies of the document, it shall be deemed as a document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506, Sept. 12, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 92Do226, Nov. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 94Do4, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Do4, Mar. 22, 1994). In the same purport, it is justifiable for the court below to make a copy of the document without the consent of the nominal owner, and to recognize the establishment of the crime of forging and uttering the copy of the document as to the so-called of the defendant who used it, and it cannot be accepted from another opinion that it does not constitute the crime

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)