Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

New Jae-in (Public prosecution) and Macho-young (public trial)

Attorney High-scale et al. and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Ma2144 Decided October 27, 2015

Of the judgment of the court below, the part not guilty against Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Where Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) shall order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Unreasonable sentencing on Defendant 1

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) shall be too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The misapprehension of legal principle as to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

The Defendant’s act of entering the facts charged is creating a copy of a separate transit certificate with a new probative value to the extent that the general public is mistaken in genuine document, and thus, it is obvious that the act constitutes Article 1 of the Private Document, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on a different premise.

2. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant 1

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant in collusion with his accomplice is deemed to be disadvantageous to the defendant, in light of the content and method of the crime, the degree of damage, the protected legal interests and interests, etc.

However, there are no grounds to believe that the sentencing of the court below is significantly unfair, on the other hand, because the defendant made a statement that he made the confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, there is no punishment power, there is a dependent, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1), Defendant 2's partial return of the agreed amount, and the victim's damage was partly recovered from the victim's damage due to the partial recovery of the agreed amount. The criminal proceeds from the crime of this case do not appear to be much more than the accomplice. The confession of the crime of this case constitutes a reason for the necessary reduction and exemption. The court below did not find that the court below sentenced one year to imprisonment within the range of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the sentencing guidelines, considering the various circumstances of the defendant, and there are no other circumstances to deem that the sentencing of the court below is remarkably unfair. The defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, degree of damage, frequency and degree of participation in the crime, degree of actual acquisition, circumstances after the crime, relationship with the victims, family relation, and health conditions of this case.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1)

1) Summary of the facts charged

Around December 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received consultation from Nonindicted 2, an attorney-at-law belonging to the said legal office, on the part of Nonindicted 3, who was introduced through Nonindicted 1, the legal office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on the part of Nonindicted 2, to the effect that he/she suffered damage caused by copyright infringement by distributing 80 convenience pictures, such as “○○○○○○○,” registered as a copyright holder; and (b) received delegation from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4, the attorney-at-law belonging to the said legal office, on the part of Nonindicted 2, who was entrusted with the act of accusation in violation of the Copyright Act; and (c) filed a complaint with the investigative agency on the violation of the Copyright Act with respect to the Internet users who posted the above flue images on the Internet portal page, using e-mail, posted it on each of the above flue pictures on March 18, 2015; and (d) prepared a separate list of users to the said 3 fluter.

When the defendant submits a written complaint to each case in accordance with the rules for the operation of the transit business established by the Seoul Local Bar Association to which he belongs, the defendant must electronically enter the particulars of the case, such as the complainant and the defendant's personal information, in the transit business program established by the Seoul Local Bar Association within seven days after attaching the original transit certificate for each complaint letter attached to the above written complaint letter. However, in order to avoid problems such as excessive payment of the purchase cost of the transit certificate which is 12,000 won per sheet and disclosure of the accepted case, and the details of the case are notified to the legal professional ethics council or the competent tax office. On March 19, 205, the defendant submitted 12,000 won for each of the above offices (1 omitted) purchased by the Seoul Local Bar Association through payment of 12,00 won per via Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4, and submitted 200 won to the Seoul Local Bar Association through the name of the Seoul Local Bar Association, which was not known to the Seoul Local Bar Association, and then copied the above written complaint under the name of the Seoul Local Bar Association.

2) The judgment of the court below

(3) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court: (a) the Defendant: (i) prepared a delegation letter with several hundred persons; (b) attached the transit certificate issued by Seoul Local Bar Association; and (c) received and submitted the delegation certificate to each of the Defendant, respectively, for the convenience of investigation, such as transfer and referral of the case to some of the Defendants who do not reside within his jurisdiction; and (c) compiled the delegation certificate with the name of the Defendant, via the Seoul Bar Association regarding the case delegated with the said delegation certificate; (b) the duplicate of the document by mechanical means, such as printing the original document, was reproduced as it is, insofar as it is difficult for the public to recognize the existence and awareness of the original document to deliver it to another person without any intentional operation in the duplication process; and (c) comprehensively, it is difficult for the public to view that the act of copying the delegation certificate attached with the transit certificate constitutes a case where the Defendant prepared a new transit certificate with the original document without any alteration to the essential nature or essential part of the existing transit certificate, and thus, it is difficult for the public to view that the form and content of the document as the name of the Seoul Bar Association.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Relevant provisions

○ Attorney-at-Law

Article 29 (through Local bar Associations in Writing of Appointment of Defense Attorneys)

When any attorney-at-law submits a letter of appointment of a counsel or a power of attorney, etc. with respect to legal cases or legal affairs to a public agency, he/she shall pass through the local bar association to which he/she belongs in advance: Provided, That when it is impracticable to pass through in advance due to an urgent circumstance, he/she shall submit

○ Regulations on Operation of Transit Services (Enactment of Seoul Local Bar Association)

Article 5 (Method of Using and Returning Certificate for Transit)

(1) A transit certificate shall be attached to a litigation delegation letter or a defense counsel appointment letter.

Article 7 (Use of Transit Certificate and Report on Its Details)

(1) Members shall attach the transit certificates purchased in advance on the letter of delegation of proceedings and the letter of appointment of counsel to the court, investigative agencies, and other public institutions.

(2) Where a transit certificate is attached and used, the details of such use shall be entered and reported in a transit service program on the website within seven days from the date of use, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 8 (Calculation of Number of Cases in Transit)

(1) In principle, when a member accepts one case, the number of cases of transit shall be regarded as one, and

(3) Where the parties concerned in a criminal case pass through and submit a written appointment of a defense counsel according to the number of parties concerned, the number of cases via the document shall be deemed one case per party.

B) Judgment of the court below on the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

(1) First, according to evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, (1) the defendant entered into a delegation contract with Non-Indicted 2 on the above body image as an attorney-at-law, (2) the defendant entered the case in violation of the Copyright Act, (3) Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 6, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 46, Non-Indicted 46, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 1546, Non-Indicted 1546, 1546, 1546, and 598).

⑵ 전자복사기, 사진기, 모사전송기 등을 사용하여 기계적인 방법에 의하여 원본을 복사한 문서인 이른바 ‘복사문서’는 문서원본과 동일한 의미를 가지는 문서로서 비록 사본이라 하더라도 문서위조죄 및 동행사죄의 객체인 문서에 해당하는바( 형법 제237조의2 참조), 위 인정사실과 더불어 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ㉠ 형법 제231조 소정의 사문서위조죄에서 ‘위조’란 작성권한 없는 자가 타인명의를 모용하여 문서를 작성하는 것을 말하는바, 서울지방변호사회를 경유하였다는 사실증명에 관한 사문서인 서울지방변호사회 명의의 경유증표를 작성할 권한 없는 피고인으로서는 관련 규정에 따라 피고소인별 각 고소사건의 고소위임장에 경유증표 원본을 부착·제출하여야 함에도 피고소인별 각각의 고소장을 개별적으로 내면서 당초 고소위임장과 그에 첨부된 경유증표를 함께 컬러 복사하여 그 경유증표 사본이 인쇄된 고소위임장을 제출한 행위는 그 자체로 공공의 신용을 해할 우려가 있는 새로운 증명력을 가지는 별개의 문서사본을 창출하는 것으로서 이러한 경유증표 사본은 형법 제237조의2 에서 말하는 ‘복사한 문서’에 해당하고, 이를 위조 및 행사하는 행위는 사문서위조죄 및 동행사죄에 해당한다고 봄이 타당한 점, ㉡ 피고인이 전자복사기로 컬러 복사한 이 사건 경유증표 사본의 외관과 형식, 내용과 취지, 그 작출경위, 그리고 변호사 사무실의 전문용지로 인쇄된 고소장 원본의 말미에 첨부된 고소위임장과 일체로 컬러 복사된 형상과 색채감(고소장 본문 하단에는 사무소 명칭과 연락처, 주소 등이 적색으로 인쇄되어 있고, 고소위임장 말미 경유증표란 좌측 위임인의 인영도 원본의 형상 그대로 컬러 복사되어 있다) 등을 전체적으로 살펴보면, 비록 이 사건 경유증표가 고소위임장과 일체로 복사되어 있기는 하나, 마치 30건의 개별적인 고소사건에 관한 정상적인 경유절차를 각각 거친 것처럼 경유증표 원본의 외관과 형태를 사실대로 재현하여 그 원본 문서의 형상과 내용을 인식할 수 있도록 하는 상태를 작출함으로써 일반인이 서울지방변호사회 명의의 진정한 문서로 오신하기에 충분한 것으로 보이는 점(외견상 이 사건 경유증표 사본 부분은 고소장 원본 말미에 첨부된 고소위임장의 위임인 인영 부분과 함께 원본 그 자체로 혼동할 여지가 다분하고 달리 일반인이나 그 제출 상대방이 주의깊게 검토·확인하지 않는 이상 단순한 복사본으로 손쉽게 가늠할 것이라고 예상하기는 어렵다), ㉢ 피고인의 변호사 경력, 고소장과 고소위임장의 작성·제출경위 등에 비추어, 피고인이 경유사건 건수에 관한 관련 규정의 해석상 착오를 일으키고 고소기간 만료일에 임박하여 수사편의 제공을 위해서 고소위임장에 첨부된 경유증표를 함께 컬러 복사하여 제출하게 되었다 하더라도 그러한 사정만으로 자신의 행위가 법령에 저촉되지 않는 것으로 오인함에 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에 해당한다거나 피고인에게 범의가 없었다고 볼 수는 없고, 그동안 이와 같은 업무처리 방식의 관행에 별다른 시정조치가 없었다는 사정만으로 달리 볼 것도 아닌 점, ㉣ ⒜고소사건의 동일성 여부(피고소인별 사건을 다수 공범자들의 동일사건으로 보기는 어렵다), ⒝고소위임장의 형식과 제출방식(당사자란에 상당수의 피고소인별 네이버 아이디가 기재되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 피고소인별 고소장을 각각 개별적으로 작성·제출하였다), ⒞고소대리 위임계약상 성공보수약정(피고소인별 개별사건 합의금의 25~30% 상당액을 성공보수금으로 분배받기로 약정하였다), ⒟경유업무프로그램의 입력방식(경유증표 구입 후 7일 내에 입력하도록 되어 있는 경유업무프로그램에 ‘사건번호, 위임인, 상대방 등’의 입력란이 마련되어 있다), ⒠제출 이후 정황(경유증표를 부착·사용한 후 7일 내에 사용내역을 서울지방변호사회 홈페이지 경유업무프로그램에 전산 입력·신고하도록 되어 있음에도 그 사용내역을 제대로 입력·신고하지 않았다), ⒡경유사건 및 경유증표에 관한 관련 규정의 내용과 제도적 취지, ⒢피고인의 검찰 제2회 진술내용(‘고소기간 만료일이 2015. 3.말경으로 경유증표 원본을 모두 구입하여 이를 고소위임장에 각각 부착하기에는 시간적으로 빠듯했다. 고소기간 도과를 우려하여 네이버 또는 다음 아이디 사용자를 20~30명씩 묶어 전국 각 수사기관에 고소하게 되었다. 별도로 고소장 분리기준이나 접수처 선정기준이 없었고 우선 고소장을 접수시키는 것이 목적이었다.’는 취지) 등에 비추어, 피고인 역시 이 사건 범행 당시 피고소인별 고소사건을 각각 1건의 경유사건으로 인식하고 있었을 개연성이 상당한 점, ㉤ 저작권법위반, 명예훼손 등에 관한 무분별한 고소·고발의 남용이 속칭 ‘합의금 장사’로 폄하되면서 사회적 문제로 부각되는 상황하에서, 피고소인별 개별사건의 1건당 합의금의 일정액을 성공보수금으로 분배받기로 약정한 피고인이 과세자료, 법조윤리협의회 통보 등과 직결되는 수임사건의 수를 대폭 축소시킬 의도로 소속 직원이나 고용변호사로 하여금 경유증표 원본이 아닌 임의로 컬러 복사한 경유증표가 부착된 고소위임장 사본을 각 고소사건에 개별적으로 제출하도록 지시함으로써 이 사건 범행에 이른 것으로 보이고, 그렇다면 적어도 피고인에게 미필적으로나마 이 사건 경유증표를 위조·행사한다는 인식이 있었다고 봄이 타당한 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 공소사실 기재와 같은 경위로 사문서위조 및 위조사문서행사 범행을 저지른 사실을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the different premise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering thereof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of defendant 2 (the defendant 1) among the judgment below is well-grounded, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading. Since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The summary of the criminal facts against Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) is as stated in the above “Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal” as stated in Article 2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. The statement of Nonindicted 5 of the lower court witness in the second trial record of the lower court

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 1

1. Each prosecutor's investigation report (the attachment of a copy of a letter of delegation of complaint, the statement confirmation by the head of the financial team of the Seoul Bar Association related to attachment of a copy of the certificate, the regulations for operation of the attorney-at-law and the accepted transit business, etc., the confirmation of the copy of the certificate attached to the delegation letter of complaint related to this case, the confirmation of the case on which the certificate was not attached by the attorney-at-law 2 (Defendant 1), the details of the complaint filed by Nonindicted 3, the details of the remittance of agreed amount, and the submission of additional written complaints by

1. Two copies of a delegation letter of complaint, one copy of a copy of a certificate of transit, one copy of the list attached to the copy, and each delegation contract;

1. A transit service program for exclusive use of members;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 231 of the Criminal Act (Influence of Private Document), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (Influence of Exercising Private Document), and selection of fines for negligence.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Uttering Illegal Document)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court are not applicable as the choice of fines. The circumstances favorable to the defendant, which were shown in the arguments and records of this case, are deemed to have been partly causing the occurrence of the crime of this case. The uncertainty, such as the standard of the transit case and the regulations on operation of the transit certificate, seems to have been partly causing the occurrence of the crime of this case. After the fact, the defendant purchased and supplemented the original transit certificate, and there is only two times a fine before and after the crime of this case, and there is no criminal conviction of the same kind), and disadvantageous circumstances (the contents and methods of the crime of this case, the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not easy in light of the protection of legal interests and interests, the denial of the crime, and the misjudgmention of the crime of this case, the age, character, intelligence and environment, the motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the frequency of the crime of this case, the balance with the ordinary sentencing in the same or similar cases, the family relationship, and health conditions of this case.

Judges Lee Jin-young (Presiding Judge)