[1] The meaning of "documents" in the crime concerning documents under the Criminal Act and whether the image shown on the computer monitoring screen constitutes "documents" in the crime concerning documents under the Criminal Act (negative)

[2] The meaning of "special media records, such as electronic records," in the crime of writing or altering a prior recording

[3] The case holding that a video file cannot be deemed as a "special media record, such as an electronic record," as referred to in Article 232-2 of the Criminal Code in the crime of writing or altering an electronic recording, in case where an image file was removed from the Internet portal site with its own computer storage device and then was prepared and altered using the earth site.

[1] In the crime related to documents under the Criminal Act, the term "documents" means the original, which is the display of the intentions or ideas described on the object continuously by letters or the virtual codes that can replace them, or a copy by mechanical means that can present the same social function and credibility, etc., its contents can be admitted as evidence for major matters in legal and social life. The form of each identification file created through computer work is not itself that can be understood by visual means, and it is difficult to regard it as "documents" in the crime related to documents under the Criminal Act, and the image shown on the computer monitor screen cannot be viewed as "documents" in the crime related to documents under the Criminal Act. In addition, in the event of implementing a program to see image files, it cannot be viewed as continuously fixed on the screen because it caused an electronic response at each time, and it does not constitute "documents" in the crime related to documents under the Criminal Act.

[2] The term “special media records, such as electronic records,” as referred to in Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act means, in itself, not independently used with objective and objective meaning, but by using them in a system established and operated by an individual or corporation for the purpose of creating, processing, storing, and printing information by electronic means.

[3] The case holding that in a case where an image file was stored in the Internet portal site and then was prepared and changed using a Saturday program, it does not constitute "special media records, such as electronic records," as referred to in Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the image file cannot be seen as performing the intended function of proof by using it in the information processing system

[1] Article 231 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7480 Decided November 29, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1013 Decided April 10, 2008 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6132 Decided June 9, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1191) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do294 Decided April 24, 2008

Defendant

Prosecutor

Maximum completion

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Ra106 decided Oct. 9, 2008

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case (the part subject to appeal)

(a) Main facts charged (a)

The Defendant, in the case of an online game “the winding country”, has obtained a temporary password by forging and forging identification cards that, when members who have joined the Internet game are forgotten, send a copy of their identification cards to the Customer Center, if they send the copy of their identification cards to the Customer Center, the Defendant would be entitled to the temporary password by using them. Through this, the Defendant planned to remove and sell various items and cyber money held by the members of the Company or to use them directly;

2007. 6. 15.경 서울 도봉구 창동 (지번 생략)에 있는 피고인의 집에서 행사할 목적으로, 권한 없이 ‘바람의 나라’ 사이트 내 자기소개 게시판에 기존회원인 공소외인이 적어 놓은 성명과 생년월일을 확인한 다음, 피고인이 자체제작한 주민등록번호 뒷자리 생성 프로그램을 통해 공소외인의 정확한 주민등록번호를 파악하고, 네이버 등 인터넷 포털사이트를 검색하여 다른 사람의 운전면허증이 찍힌 이미지 파일을 내려받은 다음, 포토샵 프로그램을 이용하여 사진 부분은 같은 방법으로 찾아낸 또 다른 사람의 사진으로, 주민등록번호 부분은 위와 같이 알아낸 공소외인의 주민등록번호( 주민등록번호 생략)로 바꾸어 넣음으로써 서울지방경찰청장 명의의 공소외인에 대한 운전면허증 사본(이미지 파일 형태의) 1장을 위조한 것을 비롯하여 위 일시경부터 2007. 6. 25.경까지 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표 2 기재와 같이 모두 7회에 걸쳐 각 다른 사람의 신분증 사본을 위조하는 등 각 공문서를 위조하고, 같은 일시·장소에서 위에서 적은 바와 같이 위조한 신분증 사본 7장을 이미지 파일 형태로 ‘바람의 나라’(넥슨) 사이트 고객센터로 보냄으로써, 위조된 공문서를 각 행사하였다.

(b) Preliminary facts charged (the point of events, such as the recording of a person in advance and the recording of a master's writing and electronic records);

피고인은 인터넷 온라인 게임인 ‘바람의 나라’의 경우 가입회원들이 자신의 비밀번호를 잊어버렸을 때 고객센터에 자신의 신분증 사본을 보내면 회사 측에서 그 임시 비밀번호를 부여하여 주는 점을 악용, 신분증 파일을 위조하여 보냄으로써 임시 비밀번호를 부여받고, 이를 통해 가입회원들이 보유하고 있는 각종 아이템 및 사이버머니들을 몰래 빼내어 판매하거나 자신이 직접 사용하는 등 주식회사 넥슨의 사무처리를 그르치게 할 목적으로,

2007. 6. 15.경 서울 도봉구 창동 (지번 생략)에 있는 피고인의 집에서 ‘바람의 나라’ 사이트내 자기소개 게시판에 기존회원인 공소외인이 적어 놓은 성명과 생년월일을 확인한 다음, 피고인이 자체제작한 주민등록번호 뒷자리 생성 프로그램을 통해 공소외인의 정확한 주민등록번호를 파악하고, 네이버 등 인터넷 포털사이트를 검색하여 다른 사람의 운전면허증이 찍힌 이미지 파일을 내려받은 다음, 포토샵 프로그램을 이용하여 사진 부분은 같은 방법으로 찾아낸 또 다른 사람의 사진으로, 주민등록번호 부분은 위와 같이 알아낸 공소외인의 주민등록번호( 주민등록번호 생략)로 바꾸어 넣은 것을 비롯하여 위 일시경부터 2007. 6. 25.경까지 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표 4 기재와 같이 모두 7회에 걸쳐 사실증명에 관한 타인의 특수매체기록을 위작하고, 같은 일시·장소에서 위에서 적은 바와 같이 위작된 신분증 사본 파일 7장을 이미지 파일 형태로 ‘바람의 나라’(넥슨) 사이트 고객센터로 송부함으로써, 위작된 사전자기록을 행사하였다.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Main facts charged

Each image file created by the Defendant does not constitute “documents” in the crimes related to documents under the Criminal Act. Therefore, this part of the facts charged on a different premise constitutes a case where each of the facts charged is not a crime.

B. Preliminary charges

피고인이 위작한 대상은 자신의 컴퓨터의 주기억 또는 보조기억장치에 저장된 전자기록이지, 위 주식회사 넥슨의 전자기록 등 특수매체기록이거나 여타 다른 사람의 전자기록 등 위 형법 제232조의2 소정의 ‘타인’의 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’을 그 객체로 한 것은 아니므로, 위 각 예비적 공소사실 역시 죄가 되지 않는 경우에 해당한다.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

A. Main facts charged

Since image files can be understood automatically by universal methods, they constitute “documents” as they are toxic.

B. Preliminary charges

In the case of electronic records, a person who prepares and manages the contents of the electronic records shall be determined on the basis of whether the person is another person, and shall not be determined on the basis of the owner of the electronic records

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on all primary and conjunctive charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. Main facts charged

As the court below properly decided, in relation to a document under the Criminal Act, the term "documents" means the original, which is the indication of intention or concept indicated on the material object continuously by means of letters or virtual codes capable of substituting them, or a copy by mechanical means that can present the same social function and credibility, etc., its contents can be admitted as evidence with regard to important matters in legal social life. The form of each image file created by the defendant through computer work in this case is not that that can be understood by visual means, and it cannot be viewed as "documents" in relation to documents under the Criminal Act. Further, the image shown on the computer monitoring screen cannot be seen as continuously fixed on the screen because it is merely shown on the screen when conducting a program to see image files at each time, and it cannot be seen as being used continuously as a document related to documents under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4318, Nov. 29, 2007; 2008Do420817, Apr. 28, 2007).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court precedents presented by the prosecutor are deemed to constitute an act of using a forged mobile phone new application for subscription in the case of transmitting the image file by e-mail after reading it by scanners, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case since the instant case differs from the other case.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument about the primary facts charged is without merit.

B. Preliminary charges

(1) Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act provides, “A person who falsifies or alters, with a view to causing another person to manage the affairs, special media records, such as electronic records on another person’s rights, duties, or certificates of fact, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.”

(2) However, the term “other person” in this context refers to the person who installs and operates the system, and even according to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant: (a) took image files from the Internet portal site, such as NAber, using the NAtool program; and (b) took them over by using the NAol program; and (c) as long as they are stored in the Defendant’s computer, it is difficult for the prosecutor to regard the subject of the Round as another person. The prosecutor asserts that the Round above is the same as the reproduction as provided in Article 237-2 of the Criminal Act. However, the above provision states that “the copies of documents or drawings reproduced using the electronic reproduction machine, facsimile machine, or other similar apparatus in the crime of this Chapter shall also be deemed as documents or drawings.” Since special media records, other than documents or drawings, are not otherwise prescribed, the prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s above interpretation is unfavorable to the Defendant cannot be accepted.

(3) Furthermore, the term “competing” as referred to in Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act refers to the preparation and modification of electronic records without authority or by deviating from the scope of authority. It is separate from whether Round is legitimate, but it is difficult for the Defendant to forgee an image file stored in his/her own computer even if the Defendant changed the image file via Round.

(4) 가사 그렇지 않더라도, 형법 제232조의2 에서 말하는 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’이라 함은 그 자체로서 객관적·고정적 의미를 가지면서 독립적으로 쓰이는 것이 아니라, 개인 또는 법인이 전자적 방식에 의한 정보의 생성·처리·저장·출력을 목적으로 구축하여 설치·운영하는 시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것을 의미한다( 대법원 2005. 6. 9. 선고 2004도6132 판결 , 대법원 2008. 4. 24. 선고 2008도294 판결 등 참조). 즉, 이는 정보처리에 이용되는 전자자료를 말한다. 그런데 피고인이 위작하였다는 이미지 파일은 정보처리시스템에서 쓰임으로써 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것이라 보기는 어렵다. 다시 말하여 피고인이 위와 같은 이미지 파일을 넥슨 주식회사에 보내어 위 회사의 운영자가 이것을 보고 피고인에게 임시 비밀번호를 부여하는지 여부를 결정하는 것일 뿐, 위 이미지 파일 자체가 넥슨 주식회사의 컴퓨터 시스템에 쓰여 어떠한 예정된 증명적 기능을 수행하는 것은 아니므로, 결국 위와 같은 이미지 파일이 형법 제232조의2 에서 말하는 ‘전자기록 등 특수매체기록’에 해당한다고 보기도 어렵다.

따라서 예비적 공소사실에 관한 검사의 주장도 이유 없다｛다만, 원심 판시 범죄일람표 4에는 범행방법이 모두 “넥슨” 고객센터로 이미지 파일을 보낸 것으로 기재되어 있으나, 원심이 허가한 공소장변경에 관한 신청서에는 각 그 범행방법이 순번 3의 범행은 “엠파스” 고객센터로, 순번 4의 범행은 “네이버” 고객센터로, 순번 5의 범행은 “프리챌” 고객센터로, 순번 6의 범행은 “네이트” 고객센터로, 순번 7의 범행은 “프리챌” 고객센터로 각 이미지 파일을 보낸 것으로 기재되어 있으므로(공판기록 61면 이하), 결국 위 범죄일람표 4의 각 해당 부분 기재는 착오로 인한 것으로 보인다.}.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). It is so decided as per Disposition, regardless of whether the act of this case can be seen as a means of crime such as each crime of Articles 3 and 4 of the decision of the court below or a crime of fraud or obstruction of business, etc.

Judges Han Chang-ho (Presiding Judge)