Whether a certificate of passing an export inspection in the name of the Director of the Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Office, a foundation, is an official document (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Article 23 of the Export Inspection Act, a station or inspector of a private designated inspection agency engaged in the affairs of export inspection shall be regarded as a public official in the application of penal provisions of the Criminal Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the certificate of passing the export inspection in the name of the director of the Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Agency

Article 225 of the Criminal Act, Article 23 of the Export Inspection Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Busan District Court (83 High Court Decision 542)

The lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

Of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment, 55 days shall be included in the calculation of Defendant 1, and 50 days shall be included in the calculation of the said sentence.

One rubber (Evidence No. 1), one confirming rubber (Evidence No. 2), one sender (Evidence No. 3), and one Korean chemical analysis and testing laboratory (Evidence No. 4) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

50,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 2.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 (the summary of the grounds for appeal by his defense counsel is to be examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal) is as follows: First, confessions made by the police that committed the crime of forging private documents and uttering 1-B-1, 2, 3, and 4 in the judgment of the court below at the time of original adjudication are not forced during the investigation, so there is a false confession, so the statement made by the police is not voluntary, but there is no arbitability. However, at the request of the above defendant 2, there is only one rubber, confirmation rubber, one sender, one Korean chemical analysis laboratory, and one Korean chemical analysis laboratory, which are located in the above original adjudication, and there is no crime of 1-B-1, 2, 3, and 4 in case of the above original adjudication, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the defendant for a two-year period of imprisonment with prison labor.

Therefore, in light of the records, the court below's reasoning for appeal as to the defendant 1 cannot be accepted, since the defendant 1's statement in the police can not be found that it was caused by adviser, violence, threat, or unfair prolongedization of physical restraint, and considering various evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, since the defendant 1 can be found to have committed the crime of this case. However, according to the court below's judgment ex officio, among the criminal facts of this case, the court below is based on the charge of forging a private document and uttering, since the defendant 1's statement in the police can be presumed to be a public official in the application of Article 23 of the Export Inspection Act or other statutes, since the defendant 1's statement in the government office is a non-designated export agent under the Export Inspection Act, a non-designated export agent's name, an export inspector's complaint in the name of the above incorporated foundation, and the court below's determination that the defendant's use of the above document constitutes a forgery of a private document and the use of a private document again under the above 4th judgment.

Defendant 1 is a person who had no occupation at present while serving in the shipbuilding industry company, which is a new product manufacturer. Defendant 2 is a Korean chemical analysis and test inspector at the Korea Foundation, which is a designated export inspection agency under the Export Inspection Act, who was engaged in the work from March 20, 1972 to October 7, 1982, and currently is a same-sex chemical and industry producer.

1. Defendant 1:

When Co-Defendant 1 of the lower court made a solicitation to arrange for convenience to easily receive export inspection by Co-Defendant 1 of the lower judgment, with the knowledge of the relationship between the export inspection of new products by working for the above Cho rubber Industries;

A. (1) When Co-defendant 1 of the court below asked that 300,000 won should be passed the export inspection in order to export to the non-indicted 1's name of the representative of Ansan-dong (name omitted) Industries Co-defendant 1 of the court below's judgment, he received 300,000 won in the cost of the export inspection.

on 6 May 11, 1981: 5, Dongsan-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 30 Seoul, made a solicitation to request the Co-Defendant 2 of the original judgment of the Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory that the above incorporated foundation inspected the above new shoes, a defective product, at the Dong-si, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 30, to make a pass decision in accordance with this solicitation, and deliver 50,000 won from the tin to the price, and give a bribe in relation to his duties;

(2) On October 10 of the same year, at the Roycheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City office, the above Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory inspector and the head of the Daegu branch office, Defendant 2, who was the inspector of the above Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory, without undergoing a normal inspection procedure. With respect to the application for export inspection filed by Co-Defendant 1 of the lower court as “the applicant corporation, the representative director for the transfer of the representative director for both applicants corporation, 12,000, US$15,000, US$15,000, and US in the export site,” the above Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy offered a bribe of KRW 200,00 in return for issuing a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the head of the

(3) On December 12 of the same year, 100,00 won was given as a bribe to Defendant 2, without undergoing a normal inspection procedure, on the application form for export inspection of 6,756 metratium 6,756 metratium 6,756 metratium applied by Co-Defendant 1 in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and 100,000 won was given in return for issuing a certificate of passing an export inspection by the Director of the Office of Chemical Analysis and Inspection of the above Korea's Chemical Analysis and Inspection Station.

(4) On December 12 of the same year, the lower court issued 100,000 won in return for the issuance of a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the Director of the Incheon Branch on the application for export inspection of the 8,449 meta-6358 for the defective sports 8,49 meta, which Nonindicted Party 2 applied to Defendant 2, at the above-gu office of the same Dong-dong, without undergoing a normal inspection, and offered a bribe in connection with his duties;

(5) On January 1, 1982, at the apartment sponser's department located in Youngpodong, Defendant 2 did not undergo a normal inspection, and, at the price for issuing a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the Director of the Incheon Branch on the application for export inspection on the defective farming 8,448 metle, Non-Indicted 2 applied by Non-Indicted 2, Defendant 2 offered a bribe with respect to his duties by providing a 50,000 won of the gold at the main office on the apartment sponser's ground located in Youngpodong-dong;

(6) On April 1 of the same year, Defendant 2 did not go through a normal inspection procedure, against the 21,976 metr. On the application for export inspection filed by Nonindicted Party 2 on the 21,976 metr. In return for issuing a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the Director of the Incheon District Office, Nonindicted Party 2 offered a bribe of KRW 50,000 to Defendant 2 in relation to his duties at the strawer's station on the ground of the head of the Incheon District Office.

B. On October 8, 1982, Defendant 2 retired from the above Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory and was unable to obtain a certificate of passing an export inspection through the Dong, Defendant 2 attempted to forge the above Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory’s pass pass certificate under the name of the Director of the Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory, and discovered that Defendant 2 forged 23,000 won in price, one rubber operator, one confirmation rubber operator, one sender, and one square seal of the Korea Chemical Analysis and Inspection Laboratory for the seals attached to the seals affixed to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Yeongdeungpo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul on November 1 of the same year;

(1) On December 12, 1982, 12: 00 on the same day, at around 00, from the second floor room of Gimando in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government opened at around 00: 09:0, Non-Indicted 2, who is the export hub of new-exploiting, solicits that he would pass an export inspection on defective and non-indicted 2, who received a gold amount of KRW 500,000,000,000,000 for the purpose of exercising expenses, and the above forged number, confirmation seal, sender, etc., affixed on each corresponding column, and affixed the above forged number, stamp, confirmation seal, sender, etc. on each side of the complaint of the Korean Chemical Analysis and Inspection Office, which proves that he passed an export inspection, and issued it to the non-indicted 2,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000.

(2) On January 24, 1983: around 00: around 00, at the Defendant’s residence, around 08:0 on the same day, Nonindicted Party 2 received a solicitation as stated in the foregoing paragraph and received a little of KRW 400,000,000 from Nonindicted Party 2 in response to the same solicitation as stated in the foregoing paragraph, and in the same manner as mentioned in paragraph (1) of the above above for the purpose of exercising the right, he forged a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the head of the above public prosecutor, who is an official document for the defective and inferior personal conditions in the application for Nonindicted Party 2, and exercises it by delivering it to Nonindicted Party 2 on the same day at around 17:0.

(3) At the end of February 1983: around 00, at the same day, around 08:0 on the same day, Nonindicted Party 2 made a solicitation as stated in the foregoing paragraph and received a gold of KRW 500,000,000,000 from the defendant's residence; in the same manner, Nonindicted Party 2 made a solicitation as stated in the foregoing paragraph; and in accordance with the foregoing paragraph (1), forged one copy of the certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the chief inspector in the name of the above chief inspector, who is a public document for the sufficient number of non-indicted 2's application for non-indicted 17:0 on the same day.

(4) On April 18, 1983: around 00: around 14:0 on the same day at the Defendant’s residence; around 00, at the same multiples as above, Nonindicted Party 2, while making a solicitation as described in the foregoing paragraph, received 40,000,000 won from the expense, and in the same manner as mentioned in the above paragraph (1) for the purpose of exercising the right, he/she forged a certificate of passing an export inspection under the name of the chief inspector in the name of the above chief inspector, who is an official document on the number of non-indicted 2’s satisfaction of non-indicted 2’s application, and exercises it on the same day at around 20:0;

2. Defendant 2:

(a) at the date and time, at the place, as described in subparagraph 1-A (2), engage in an official unjust conduct to issue a certificate of passing an export inspection of defective shoes, such as the description, without a normal inspection, at the request of Defendant 1, and to issue the same certificate of passing an inspection as the description, and accept a bribe as stated in that statement;

B. At each date, time, and place of entry in subparagraph 1-A (3) through (6), the above defendant issued a letter of passing an export inspection for defective new products as described in each of the above columns submitted by each of the applicants for the purpose of exercising the export inspection upon acceptance of a request from the defendant 1 to issue a letter of passing an export inspection for defective products, as described in each of the above columns, and each of the above columns, which is an incorporated foundation, the Korean Chemical Analysis and Inspection Office's official seal attached to the name of the Director of the Incheon Division of the Public Prosecutor's Office, each of which is an official document affixed with the official seal of the Director of the Public Prosecutor's Office, each of which is an official document affixed with the official seal of the Director of the Public Prosecutor's Office, and each of which is delivered to the defendant 1 at each of the above time, and each of which is an unlawful act, and then received a bribe from the defendant 1 as described in

The summary of evidence admitted by a member is the same as that stated 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.

Article 133 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "" of the defendants 1 of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the so-called 5th or above-mentioned public document under Article 133 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 225 of the so-called public document under Articles 229 and 225 of the same Act shall be included in the so-called ex post facto bribery; Article 131 (2) and Article 225 of the Criminal Act shall be prescribed in Article 225 of the same Act; Article 229 and Article 225 of the same Act shall be applicable to each of the above public document under Article 15 of the same Act; Article 20 of the same Act shall be applicable to the defendant's 5th or above-mentioned public document under Article 130 of the same Act; Article 50 of the same Act shall be applicable only to the defendant's new imprisonment with prison labor; and Article 15 of the same Act shall be applicable only to the defendant's new imprisonment with prison labor;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeon Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)