Punishment for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint upon request by an agent by the principal (=Crime of Preparation of False Public Document)

If a public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of seal imprints that he/she applied for and entered as if he/she was issued a certificate of seal imprint even though he/she had not directly withdrawn, it constitutes a crime of preparing false public document instead of forging a certificate of seal

Articles 225 and 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do758 delivered on June 25, 1985 (Gong1985, 1089) Supreme Court Decision 92Do2060 Delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong192, 3195)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-young

Changwon District Court Decision 96No973 delivered on April 9, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the fabrication of official document and the uttering thereof

If a public official in charge of the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint, even though he/she did not have directly withdrawn, requested and entered as if he/she had received a certificate of seal imprint as if he/she had received it, this constitutes a crime of preparing a false public document, not a crime of forging a public document (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Do758, Jun. 25, 1985; 92Do2060, Oct. 13, 1992, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged in this case, the court below committed a forgery of each certificate of personal seal impression in collusion with co-defendant in collusion with the court below's decision as to the least movement in the name of the face page, which is an official document, while the defendant worked as a staff member of the Hohae-gun in the office under the Kimhae-gun Office from around 1990 to 191.

However, according to the records, while the defendant was working as a member of the family council of the Myeon office, and was in charge of the affairs related to the company's affairs and the issuance of certificates under the name of the head of the Myeon, the defendant issued the certificate of personal seal impression to the principal of the family council as if he applied for the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression at the request of co-defendant 1, who is a member of the family council working in the industry of the Myeon office, for loan guarantee or loan for three times in spite of the fact that he did not go to the highest extent of the Myeon office and applied for the issuance of the certificate.

However, with the knowledge that the defendant had no intention to apply for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression, the defendant made a statement to the effect that he had conspiredd to forge the certificate by the above method in the court of first instance, although it is difficult to view it as a confession of the facts charged in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the other statements in the court of first instance and the police, the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office of the court below, the defendant received a request from the court of first instance to issue the certificate of personal seal impression as if he applied for the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression, and he refused it on the ground that he did not have the intention to apply for the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression, and he refused it on the ground that he did not have the intention to apply for the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression, and he did not want to obtain the certificate of personal seal impression because he did not have the right to request for the issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression directly from the court of first instance."

In light of the above circumstances and the legal principles as seen earlier, the defendant did not have a criminal intent to commit the crime of aiding and abetting the official document, but only had a criminal intent to prepare false official document with respect to the issuance of a certificate of seal impression as if he applied by his agent. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the false issuance of the certificate of seal impression, due to the misconception of facts or failure to exhaust all deliberations. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

2. As to the preparation and exercise of false official documents

Examining the adopted evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty by making each false entry in the certificate of seal imprint issuance ledger as stated in its decision is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the crime of forging official document and the crime of uttering on the premise thereof shall not be reversed. The judgment of the court below is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the court below, since each crime and the remaining crime of preparing official document and the crime of uttering are regarded as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)