위조(僞造)와 복사(複寫)

Abstract

Even after the Article 237–2[Article 237–2 (Reproduced Documents, etc.) For the crimes as prescribed in this Chapter, any copies of documents or drawings reproduced using the electronic reproduction machines, facsimile telegraphs or other similar apparatus, shall be considered as document or drawing.] of the Penal Code was created, the world has changed and also shown a technological progress at a pace that is difficult to follow, and as a matter of fact, it is being questioned whether it will be able to engage or replicate all duplication techniques. It is said that Article 237–2 is a legislative error to be abolished and all copying can not be counterfeited by legislative measures of ‘copying is conterfeiting.’ It is also strongly voiced to point out the supreme attitude of legal interpretation of the Supreme Court, which does not properly reflect the reality of computer–based document processing and use, such as changing the image on a computer screen. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which is the subject of a critical analysis of this paper, is drawing attention to the issue again. The purpose of this article is to clarify the current law and the interpretation of the law of the Supreme Court, and examine the argument of the interpretation by comparing and examining several precedents showing various types of behavior among the precedents of the Supreme Court up to now.