Even if the principal of the school, who is a public official, prepares a false private document, the disbursement resolution of the school speech meeting is limited to the qualification of the director of the press conference, so it cannot be called as a preparation of a false public document and its events.

Even if the principal of the school, who is a public official, prepares a false document in the capacity of a director of the press conference, the disbursement resolution of the school press conference shall be called a private document, and even if the principal of the school falsely prepares it, it shall not be called a false official

Article 227 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 70No479 decided May 6, 1971

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

As to the first ground for appeal by the defense counsel

In the reasoning stated, the original judgment determined that the Defendant, who is a public official, was in collusion with the Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant 1, who is a public official in charge of the school affairs, prepared a false official document and kept it in the general affairs of the school.

However, the accompanying company preparing false public documents shall be established in cases where a public official prepares, alters, or exercises a false document or drawing in connection with his/her duties for the purpose of exercising his/her duties, and it is a private organization organized by a faculty type for the purpose of supporting the school. The disbursement resolution of the school branch is a private document which determines the intention of monetary expenditure by the chairperson of the school branch. Even if the co-defendant of the first instance court or the head of the school, who is an employee in charge of general affairs of the school, conspired to prepare and execute a false disbursement resolution for the purpose of holding the school, he/she can be recognized as having been prepared and exercised as a director qualification by the defendant, and it cannot be said that the co-defendant of the first instance court prepared and exercised the same document as a public official qualification, and the preparation and execution of the false public document cannot be established. However, even though the original judgment was accepted by the court of first instance which recognized that the crime of uttering of the false public document was established, the original judgment should be reversed without any grounds for appeal.

Therefore, according to Article 398 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet