Attached to a custom-made prosecution mark vehicle... Supreme Court rules "Not forgery or use of Gonggiho"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a driver who attached a custom-made sign bearing the prosecution logo, ordered from an internet site, to their car cannot be punished for forgery or use of forged official marks.

Even if ordinary people might mistake a vehicle with such a sign as a "prosecution official duty vehicle," the prosecution work marks do not have a certifying function, so they cannot be considered official marks.

A custom-made sign ordered by Mr. Kang.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) overturned the original ruling that sentenced Kang to 8 months in prison with a 2-year probation for charges of forgery and use of forged official marks, and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court.

The court stated, "The original judgment violated the rules of logic and experience, exceeded the limits of free evaluation of evidence, and misinterpreted the law regarding official marks, which affected the judgment," as the reason for overturning and remanding.

Kang was indicted for ordering and attaching to his passenger car, from November to December 2020, signs purchased online that included the prosecution logo along with phrases such as "Prosecution SERVICE" and "Official Duty," as well as his mobile phone number.

He falsely told those around him that "my cousin who works as a prosecutor borrowed the car and attached the signs," making it seem as if the signs were actually used by prosecution staff.

In court, Kang's defense argued that ▲the prosecution marks lack specificity or certifying nature and thus are not official marks, ▲he merely purchased products sold on an online shopping mall and did not "forge" them, ▲attaching the signs to the vehicle alone does not constitute "use," and ▲even if criminal liability applies, the charges should be impersonation of a public official under the Minor Offenses Act, not forgery or use of forged official marks under the Criminal Act.

However, both the first and second instance courts found Kang guilty on all charges, sentencing him to 8 months imprisonment with 2 years probation, along with probation supervision and 200 hours of community service.

The first trial court stated, "It can be recognized that the defendant forged and used official marks, namely prosecution work signboards, with the intent to use them."

As grounds for this judgment, the court noted ▲the work signs Kang made were the "Prosecution CI (Corporate Identity, logo)" and "Prosecution CM (Communication Mark)," which appear to be used as symbols to certify the prosecution office's work itself or its relation to work, from investigation, prosecution, and execution of sentences to external publicity ▲the defendant attached these signs to the front and rear of the vehicle, and the content of the signs as a whole was sufficient to cause ordinary people to mistake the vehicle as a prosecution official duty vehicle or related to it ▲the defendant claimed he only purchased the products and did not make them, so it cannot be considered forgery, but considering the ordering method on the online shopping mall where the signs were sold, the defendant did not simply purchase ready-made products but selected the marks to be engraved on the signs, provided his personal mobile phone number and vehicle number to the seller, and thus the signs were completed through the defendant's order, production request, and information transmission.

Kang appealed, but the second trial court's judgment was the same.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed.

The court first stated, "Under Article 238 of the Criminal Act, an official mark requires not only that the mark is used by a public official or public office, but also that the matters certified by the mark are specifically identified and that certification through the mark is required."

The court explained, "The prosecution work marks used on the signs in this case appear to represent the prosecution office's overall work or its relation, from investigation, prosecution, and execution of sentences to external publicity, but there is no basis to consider that the vehicle with these signs attached has a certifying function that it is a 'prosecution official duty vehicle' or that the matters certified are specifically identified through these signs."

Therefore, the court concluded, "Even if ordinary people might mistake a vehicle with these signs as a 'prosecution official duty vehicle,' since the prosecution work marks lack such certifying function, they cannot be considered official marks."

The crime of forgery of official marks is typically applied in cases of forging vehicle license plates. Unlike license plates, which intuitively certify that a vehicle is properly registered with the state, the prosecution logo attached to a vehicle does not function to certify that it is an official duty vehicle, so it cannot be punished under the crime of forgery of official marks, according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

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