Supreme Court Rules Parking in General Zones with Disability Vehicle Placard Without Authority Is Not "Forgery of Official Documents"

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a person without authorization uses a disabled parking permit in their vehicle, if they park in a regular parking space rather than a disabled-only parking space, they cannot be punished for the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document.

This conclusion follows the previous Supreme Court precedent that narrowly interprets the concept of 'misuse' in the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document as a case where an unauthorized person uses the document according to its original intended purpose.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced Kim (56), who was indicted for forgery or misuse of a public document after parking his private car with an expired disabled parking permit on the front windshield in a regular parking space, and remanded the case to Changwon District Court on the 25th.

The court stated, "The lower court's ruling that found the defendant guilty of the charges in this case contains an error in the legal interpretation of 'misuse' under the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document, which affected the judgment."

Kim was prosecuted for placing an already expired disabled parking permit issued by the Mayor of Dongnae-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, on the front of his vehicle and parking in a regular parking space in an apartment underground parking lot on May 20, 2020.

Kim's mother was disabled, and since 2014, he had legally obtained and used a guardian's disabled parking permit. However, since November 2019, he was no longer allowed to use it because his address differed from his mother's.

In court, Kim argued for acquittal, stating that ▲ the disabled parking permit was already invalid and therefore could not be considered a public document subject to the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document, and ▲ since he parked in a regular parking space rather than a disabled-only parking space, it could not be considered use according to the original purpose.

However, both the first and second trial courts rejected all of Kim's claims.

Regarding Kim's first argument, these courts held that for a genuine public document with a specified authorized user and purpose, the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document applies not only to valid documents but also to expired ones.

The crime of forgery or misuse of a public document is an abstract risk offense that protects the 'public trust in the use of public documents.' Even if there is no specific or actual risk of harm to the protected interest, the crime is established if a general risk of harm occurs. Therefore, even if a public document that was validly established loses its effect due to expiration, the risk to the public when it is misused remains the same.

Furthermore, the lower courts rejected Kim's second argument, reasoning that according to related laws such as the Disabled Welfare Act and its enforcement regulations, the disabled parking permit is a sign that allows recognition of a vehicle used by a disabled person to facilitate support, and parking in a disabled-only parking space is only one of several uses of the disabled parking permit.

In fact, vehicles issued with a disabled parking permit receive benefits such as tax reductions, discounts on parking fees and highway tolls, and consideration during parking violation enforcement (enforcement focused on guidance as much as possible without obstructing traffic flow and safety).

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed.

The court first cited the Supreme Court plenary session ruling that the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document should be strictly and narrowly interpreted.

Previously, in April 2001, the Supreme Court plenary session stated, "Article 230 of the Criminal Act (crime of forgery or misuse of a public document) only stipulates as an element 'a person who forges or misuses a document or seal of a public official or public office,' which may lead to excessively broad punishment. Therefore, the subject, object, and manner of the crime should be interpreted as strictly as possible to reasonably limit the scope of punishment."

The court also cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that "even if a public document with a specified authorized user and purpose is used by an unauthorized person, if the use is not according to the original purpose of the document, the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document does not apply."

The court then concluded, "The defendant's act of placing a disabled parking permit on his private car and parking in a location other than a disabled-only parking space cannot be considered a case where the disabled parking permit was used in a situation where support for disabled vehicles could reasonably be expected. Considering these facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's use of the disabled parking permit cannot be regarded as use according to its original purpose, so the crime of forgery or misuse of a public document is not established."

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