It is erroneous that the crime of preparing false official document is recognized without confirming that the person has the authority to prepare the official document.

(a) The offense of preparing a false official document is an offense of status in which the public official who is the authority to prepare the document is the person who is the person who is the authority to prepare the document, and thus the offense of preparing a false official document is determined without confirmation.

(b) In case where an employee in charge of the draft of an official document assisting a public official who is authorized to draw up the official document completes the official document by submitting a false draft to the commercial person who is unaware of the purpose of the event by taking advantage of his position and making him sign and seal it for the purpose of the event, an indirect offense of preparation of a false official document is established;

C. Since the facts charged that require entry in the indictment refer to the specific facts that meet the specific elements of the crime, it cannot be said that the entry in the indictment is invalid on the ground that the entry in the indictment is unclear.

Article 227 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 1959No2167 delivered on April 1, 1960, Seoul High Court Decision 2007

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

No. 1 of the reasons for appeal by the defense counsel,

However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendants committed the crime in this case as a co-principal. Moreover, the facts charged that require the indictment in accordance with Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act refer to a specific fact that satisfies the special constituent requirements of the crime, and the attitude of the crime is different as to whether the defendant is a co-principal or a co-principal, and it does not constitute a special constituent element of the separate crime. Thus, it cannot be said that the indictment is null and void on the ground that there is no clear statement as to this point.

As to the second ground for appeal:

According to the records, the title holder of the receipt of notice of this case shall be deemed the name of the head of Seoul Customs Office and the offense of preparing false public documents shall be interpreted as an identity offense in which the public official who is the authority to prepare the documents is the person who is the person who is the authority to prepare the documents, but the court below recognized the defendants as committing a crime of preparing false public documents without confirming that there is the authority to prepare the receipt of notice of this case, it shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principles, and the arguments shall be reasonable. Furthermore, if an employee who is in charge of preparing the public documents, assisting the public official who is the authority to prepare the documents, makes a false proposal for the purpose of uttering using his position and submits it to the official who is not aware of this fact, and puts his signature and seal on it to the public official document and completes the public document, the indirect principal offense of preparing the false public document is established (this judgment of December 14, 1961 and it is not inconsistent with the above opinion). It is more consistent with the judgment of the court below as per Disposition.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference