Whether the farmland creation cost and payment notice sent to the head of the Si/Gun constitutes an official document under the Criminal Act, as part of the performance of official duties by the Rural Development Corporation entrusted with the affairs of the Farmland Management Fund (affirmative)

Articles 225 and 229 of the Criminal Act; Articles 27, 28, 32(1) and (2), and 35(1) and (2) of the Rural Development Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act; Article 36(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rural Development Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act; Article 4(4) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act; Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act; Article 8(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 92No559 delivered on November 18, 1992

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the alteration of official documents and the part of the event of the same, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant was designated as a hot spring district, and the owner of the land located in the Cheongdo-gun-do-gun-do-do-do-do-owned district-owned district was notified by the Rural Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") by reducing the amount of alternative farmland creation cost for the land incorporated into the hot spring district in the course of the formation of the hot spring development project and the implementation of the hot spring development project, and the notification of the amount of the notice of payment was made to the above association in mind, and the official approval for the plan for the creation of Cheongdo-do-do-owned hot spring tourism land was electronically copied for the purpose of using the difference in the original decision by electronically using the farmland creation cost column in the notice of payment under the name of the farmland management fund manager, and then the employee of the Cheongdo-do-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-do-do-do-owned corporation is responsible for the above and part of the farmland management fund.

However, according to Articles 27 and 28 of the Farmland Management Fund Act, the Government shall establish and operate the Farmland Management Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund") to raise and supply funds necessary for farmland creation projects, etc., and the financial resources thereof shall be created by the person intending to divert farmland using the farmland with the amount of farmland created under Article 4 (4) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act. According to Articles 32 (1) and 32 (2) of the Farmland Management Fund Act, the operation and management of the Fund shall be prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, but the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall provide that part of his duties may be entrusted to the Corporation under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the Minister shall entrust the accounting of the Fund and the collection and management of the amount of farmland created under the provisions of subparagraph 4 of Article 28 of the Act to the Corporation, and Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Management Fund Management Fund Act shall provide that the person dedicated to the Fund shall be entrusted with the Fund accounting management work without delay.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's alteration and use of the notice of payment in this case did not constitute a crime of alteration and uttering of official documents, while recognizing facts as stated in its reasoning, shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to official documents.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)