Where a forged official document uses the forged official document to an accomplice who has forged the document, whether the crime of uttering of the forged official document is established

Where the other party to the display of forged public documents is the same criminal who has publicly recruited such forgery, only the crime of forging forged public documents is established as an accomplice, and the crime of uttering forged public documents is not established.

Article 229 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do2639 delivered on January 30, 1973

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor (as to all the defendants), Defendants 3 and 2

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74 high Gohap136)

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant 2 is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

One hundred thirty-five days of detention days prior to the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

Each forged part of a certificate (certificate No. 12) of a certificate of a personal seal impression of one copy (certificate No. 13) shall be discarded.

The appeal by the defendant 3 and each appeal by the prosecutor against the defendants is dismissed.

1. The first point of appeal by Defendant 3 is that the defendant was aware of the relationship between Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5, and that he was aware of the relationship between Defendant 1 and the head of the Ban upon Nonindicted Party 1’s request, which was known to him as having been engaged in construction work as a painting technician. There was only a fact that Defendant 1 was asked to request his duties concerning the transfer of resident registration to the head of the Ban, and even though there was no participation in the crime at all, the court below found Defendant guilty of committing each of the crimes against Defendant. The judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misconception of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point is unfair because the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too too unreasonable.

2. The first point of appeal by Defendant 2 is that the defendant introduced the real estate sale from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 6 to offer a face-to-face introduction fee, and without any doubt, he brought about the documents delivered by Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 7 without any doubt. However, the court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point is that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The first point of appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair, and the second point is that the court below acquitted Defendant 1 and 3 of the facts charged, which affected the judgment of the court below by misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of uttering of forged official document. In other words, even though the deliveryer knew of the fact of the above Article, if it is obvious that the deliveryer would exercise the forged official document as a true document, and it is eventually obvious that the deliveryer would use it as a true document, and if it is used in a genuine document, the deliveryer cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of uttering of forged official document. In this case, Defendant 1, 3, and 4 knew that he had known in advance that he will exercise it as a true document in accordance with the purport of the falsified official document, and that Defendant 2 had to exercise it as a true document, and that there was a clear forgery of the forged official document and a certificate of the personal seal impression issued to the Defendants.

First, in light of the records, the first point of each of the grounds for appeal by Defendants 3 and 2 is health, and various evidences adopted by the court below through legitimate examination of evidence (in particular, the above defendants consented to the above evidence in the court below's open court), and there is no error of law as pointed out the facts alleged in the court below's process of fact finding otherwise. The grounds for appeal by the court below are without merit. Second, the gist of the prosecutor's appeal against Defendants 1 and 3 in this case is from the end of the 6th day to the 5th day of the court below's decision, and since there is no evidence that the above defendants' use of forged or falsified public documents in collusion with the non-indicted 2, 3, 4 and 5, the defendant's use of forged or falsified public documents constitutes a crime of uttering of evidence by the non-indicted 1 and the defendant's use of forged or falsified public documents is without merit. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant's use of forged or falsified public documents constitutes a crime of uttering of evidence as stated in the above facts.

Finally, Defendant 3 and Defendant 2, and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing are health. Examining in detail the circumstances, such as the motive, means, result, degree of damage, age and character of the Defendants, character and conduct, environment, existence of criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the circumstances asserted by Defendant 3, 2, and the prosecutor, first of all, the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 3 is inappropriate, or the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 1 and 2 is too heavy, or it is not considered that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 1 and 2 is too unreasonable, and thus, the appeal on the unfair sentencing against Defendant 3 and the prosecutor is without merit. However, since the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 2 is considered to be unreasonable, the appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by Defendant 2 cannot be reversed.

Therefore, according to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal filed by Defendant 3 and the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants is dismissed, and the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed and it is decided again by a party member.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of Defendant 2 recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Defendant 2’s uttering of a forged official document falls under Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act. Since one act constitutes several crimes, Article 40 and Article 50(3) of the same Act shall be imposed on one copy of a falsified official document with the nature of the crime and valuable registration right under Article 40 and Article 50(3) of the same Act, the defendant shall be subject to punishment under Article 40 and Article 50(3) of the same Act. Since the defendant is the first offender and has not committed a serious reflect on his mistake through long-term confinement life, and there have been no occurrence of murder, he shall be sentenced to punishment under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act within the term of punishment which has been mitigated in accordance with Article 57 of the same Act, he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months before the sentence is included in the above punishment, and since part of the document constitutes a forgery of a falsified official document under Article 138(1)4 of the same Act and the document shall be confiscated under Article 138(3) of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)