[1] The meaning of "purpose of uttering" in the crime of forging a telephone under Article 207 of the Criminal Code, and whether the purpose of uttering is recognized in a case where a telephone was forged for the purpose of showing one's credibility to another (negative)

[2] Whether the "a counterfeited currency", which is the object of the crime of forging a counterfeited currency and the crime of uttering of a forged currency, has the appearance of the general public to the extent that it can be mistaken for a genuine currency (

[1] The term "purpose of uttering" under Article 207 of the Criminal Code refers to the purpose of distributing forged or altered currencies as genuine currencies, contrary to the case of securities under Article 207 of the Criminal Code. Thus, in a case where a currency is forged for the purpose of proving one's credibility, it shall not be deemed that there is a purpose of uttering.

[2] The crime of forging a currency and the crime of uttering of a counterfeited currency, which are the objects of such crime, shall have the appearance of the general public to the extent that it can be mistaken for a genuine currency

[1] Article 207 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 207 of the Criminal Code

[2] Supreme Court Decision 85Do570 delivered on April 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 819), Supreme Court Decision 86Do255 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 740)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2011No45 decided June 2, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"Purpose of uttering" as stipulated in Article 207 of the Criminal Act refers to the purpose of distributing forged or altered currencies as genuine currencies, unlike in the case of valuable instruments, so it cannot be said that there is a purpose of uttering in a case where a currency is forged for the purpose of proving one's credibility.

In addition, the crime of forging currency and the crime of uttering of counterfeited currency, which are the objects of the crime of forging currency, must have the appearance of the general public to the extent that it can be mistaken for true currency in the course of distribution (Supreme Court Decision 85Do570 delivered on April 23, 1985).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court in light of the records, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime on the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)