During Divorce Litigation, Husband Forged Seal to Register Sick Son's Transfer... Supreme Court "Not Guilty"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A woman who forged her husband's seal to register her child’s residence during a divorce lawsuit was acquitted. Considering the circumstances at the time, including the purpose of forging the seal to bring and raise her sick child at her own home, the act was deemed permissible.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court’s 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jeonghee) announced that it upheld the lower court’s acquittal of Ms. A, who was charged with private seal forgery and other offenses.

Ms. A was accused of forging her husband’s seal during a divorce lawsuit in 2015 and using it to register her son’s residence. During the process of changing the children’s address, she forged the seal without her husband’s consent and submitted the residence registration form stamped with the forged seal to the community service center.

The first trial court ruled, “Since Ms. A was in a situation where she could contact her husband, it was not impossible to obtain his consent,” and found her guilty, sentencing her to four months in prison with a one-year probation.

The second trial court overturned this decision. It recognized the legitimacy of Ms. A’s actions in light of social ethics and common sense. The second trial court stated, “It is excessively harsh to conclude that Ms. A should have abandoned the best interests of the child under these circumstances,” and ruled, “Ms. A’s act of forging and using her husband’s seal is an act that can be tolerated in terms of social ethics and common sense,” acquitting her.

In particular, although the husband, the victim of the seal forgery, did suffer an infringement of his legal interests, the court emphasized that the welfare of the child, which should be given priority, and Ms. A’s right to pursue happiness, who was unable to meet her children due to the husband’s obstruction, must be balanced and protected. Additionally, the forged seal was used only once, which did not damage Mr. B’s other social credibility, and the residence registration was reversed, restoring the infringed legal interests, which also influenced the decision.

The Supreme Court also confirmed the ruling, stating, “There is no error in the lower court’s application of the law.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.