In case where a person who serves as a representative director of a company issues a check of the company by using his name without changing the name of the former representative director, which is the agreement for the current transaction with the bank, the nature of the crime of forging securities.

Where a document is prepared on behalf of another person or by acting as a representative, the representative or agent shall not be prepared on behalf of the person concerned, but shall be prepared on behalf of the person concerned and shall take effect only for the person himself/herself. Therefore, even if the representative director of a company issues the check of the company by using the name of the former representative director without changing the current account transaction agreement with the bank, even if the person who is in the office of representative director of the company issues

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor of Seoul District Prosecutors' Office

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 73No8594 delivered on April 11, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office:

When a document is prepared on behalf of another person or as a representative, the representative or agent shall not be prepared on behalf of the other person, but shall be prepared on behalf of the person in question and shall take effect only for the person in question. According to the facts established by the judgment of the first and second court, Defendant 1 is a representative director of the Large Mining Development Corporation. Accordingly, in collusion with the joint Defendant 2, who has the authority to prepare the document on behalf of the above company, and issued each check using the name of the former representative director under the name of the former representative director without changing the current account transaction name. Thus, the issuer of the check in question shall be the above large Mining Development Corporation and the representative director of the above company who has the authority to issue the check in his name as the representative director of the above company, and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles in the judgment of the court below that did not recognize that Defendant 1 or the joint executor under the name of the above company had forged the check in his name.

Therefore, according to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Spanmun-gu (Presiding Justice)