Whether it constitutes a crime of altering an official document even if a copy of an official document is reproduced after altering it; and

If it was the intention to exercise the changed official document itself at the time of alteration, it is the crime of altering the official document even if the copy was used after copying it thereafter.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (86 High Court Decision 350, 453 (Joint Court Decision)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: First, the court below's alteration of the official document of this case affected the judgment as a result of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence; second, the court below's decision is unlawful; second, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible; second, the main point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, I first examine the reasons for appeal claiming a mistake of facts by the prosecutor. The court below found that the defendant's arbitrary change of the publication date of the certified copy of the resident registration card against the defendant, which is a public document, as stated in the facts charged, is not for the purpose of using the certified copy of the resident registration which has changed from the subjective intention of the defendant, but for the purpose of using it as a copy, so the above change does not constitute a crime of altering a public document.

However, in full view of the defendant's prosecutor's office and the court below's statements, when the defendant wants to enter the Dong branch office of an enlightenment, news, and sale corporation, the company requested the copy of the resident registration card of the issuance recently, but the defendant's resident registration card cannot be issued in a regular manner because the defendant's resident registration card was issued ex officio, and the date of issuance is now known as the last day. Thus, since the copy of the resident registration card issued by the non-indicted 1 before his talking about his talking about and cancelling his opinion was changed in the same manner as the facts charged, it can be recognized that the letter and the previous letter are different from his old one, and since it was worn out, it was impossible to submit it to the above company as it was, and it was also impossible to submit it, it can be recognized that the copy will be submitted.

Therefore, if the defendant changed the original copy of the certified copy of the resident registration, it cannot be deemed that there was an objective to exercise the original copy itself, and the court below which concluded otherwise erred in misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, but it is erroneous in misunderstanding the above official document, and since the above modification of the official document and other crimes which were found guilty at the court below are concurrent crimes, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the decision is again rendered as follows.

1. In order to find the Defendant’s resident registration certificate as a library of the Dong branch office of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, if it is intended to submit the resident registration certificate, but the Defendant’s resident registration is registered as the Seoul Seongbuk-gu (Saeung omitted), which was cancelled ex officio as of April 7, 1984 and cannot be newly issued with the resident registration certificate, and the Defendant’s resident registration is issued as of February 18, 1984, which was issued as of February 18, 1984, which was issued as of February 16:00 on October 28, 1985 for the purpose of altering the date of issuance of the resident registration certificate to the Defendant who was issued as of February 18, 1985, which was issued as of February 16:0, 1985, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Dong-gu 2 head office around the new high school located in children, and the Defendant’s resident registration certificate is recorded as “10th of the following month” in the publication column;

2. On November 1, 1985, when becoming a member of the Dong branch office of any enlightenment and Co., Ltd., Ltd. and engaged in the book-post sales and cash collection business, on December 4, 1985, Non-Indicted 2 of Seongdong-gu Seoul (Sengdong Branch omitted) sold to Dong-dong branch office of the above Dong-dong branch office of the above Dong-dong branch office of the company for KRW 244,600,000 and KRW 44,600,000 and KRW 44,60,000 and KRW 46,60,000,000 won and KRW 16,000,000 won and KRW 16,000,000,000 won and KRW 44,60,000,000 won and KRW 14,000,000,000 won and KRW 16,014,000,000.

3. On January 14, 1986, around 16:00, at the office of Dong branch of Dong branch of Dong branch of Dong branch of Dong office of 187-17, Dong office, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, to demand the defendant to compensate for the amount embezzled by the defendant, part of the money is to be lent from the defendant's home to the defendant's home of Dong branch office of the non-indicted 5 (vehicle number omitted) from non-indicted 4, and the defendant is driving the vehicle and the employees of the above Dong branch office of Dong branch office of Dong branch office of the non-indicted 6 and 7, as well as the head of the defendant's office of Dong branch office of Dong-gun, Gyeonggi-do (detailed address omitted), at around 01:00 on the 15th day of the same month, he takes custody of the above vehicle at around 030,000 won, and then 20,0000 won, 30,000 won, and 30,00000 won,00 won.

4. On March 2, 1984, the gold publishing company was engaged in the book-post and cash-raising business from the book-post office of the gold publishing company and was engaged in the book-post and cash-raising business. On October 27, 1984, Non-Indicted 9's house located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (SaBC omitted) to Non-Indicted 9, the owner of the above gold publishing company. Non-Indicted 96,00 won of the above gold publishing company. In other words, the company received the above price at the seat and deposited 21,000 won out of the above price in the occupational custody, and embezzled the remaining 75,000 won as Defendant's daily consumption with Defendant's daily consumption at the same place on the same day and then sold it to Non-Indicted 9 at the same time as Defendant's daily consumption 25,000 won as Defendant's daily consumption 20,000 won as shown in the list of embezzlement.

The facts of the ruling shall:

1. Entry of the defendant in the protocol of trial of the original court corresponding thereto;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer, which corresponds thereto;

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 3, 4, 6, and 10 prepared by the prosecutor and each statement of Nonindicted 11 prepared by the prosecutor acting on behalf of the prosecutor, shall conform to the relevant part of the written statement of statement prepared by the prosecutor.

1. Each statement made by the judicial police assistant with respect to Nonindicted 6, 10, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14, which conforms to the relevant part of the judgment;

1. Each statement of confirmation drawn up by Nonindicted 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 which conforms to the pertinent part of the judgment

1. In full view of the contents corresponding to the judgment among the copies of forged certified copy of the resident registration card, such certification is sufficient;

The so-called the so-called 1 of the judgment in the so-called "Article 225 of the Criminal Act", Articles 2 and 4 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 3 of the 2,3, and Article 355 (1) of the 35 of the 35 of the 2,3, and 4 of the 37 of the 37 of the 37 of the 37 of the 38 (1) of the 2, and Article 50 of the 38 (1) of the 38 and Article 50 of the 38 of the 1999 of the 1999 of the 2, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year within the scope of the 1st sentence, and the 100-day period of detention prior to the declaration of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

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

Judges KimHun-tae (Presiding Justice)