Whether it constitutes an offense of unlawful uttering of official document where another person's driver's license is presented to the person who is requested to produce an identification card while purchasing a mobile phone (negative)

The act of presenting another person's driver's license that he/she was requested to produce an identification card to verify his/her personal information while purchasing a mobile phone does not constitute an unlawful uttering of official document under Article 230 of the Criminal Act because it cannot be deemed that he/she used another person's driver's license according to the intended use

Article 230 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1593 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 708), Supreme Court Decision 90Do1877 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1820), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1052 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2189), Supreme Court Decision 91Do3269 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193, 299) (Gong196Do1735 delivered on October 11, 196)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 98No3288 delivered on February 24, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Articles 68, 69, and 77 of the Road Traffic Act, a driver's license is an official document evidencing that the driver's license is a person who passed the driver's license test and is permitted to drive a motor vehicle. When driving the motor vehicle, the purpose of the driver's license is specified so that the police officer can prove that the driver's license is permitted to drive the motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle, and the possessor's personal information is not verified. Thus, as determined by the court below, the defendant's act of presenting a driver's license issued to the non-indicted Recognizer who was in possession of a request to present identification card in order to verify his/her personal information at the modern Information and Communications Office located in Incheon Metropolitan City, cannot be deemed to have used another person's driver's license according to the purpose of use, and therefore, the crime of uttering of official document under Article 230 of the Criminal Act is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1733, Oct. 11, 1996; 90Do385.

In the same purport, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and found the defendant not guilty of the unlawful uttering of official documents among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the unlawful uttering of official documents, and there is no need to change the opinion of the Supreme Court on this point.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)