🔎 Case Summary

A defendant who forged a victim’s “no-punishment statement” (처벌불원서) to secure leniency was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. The court emphasized that tampering with sentencing materials strikes at the integrity of the judicial process and warrants a custodial sentence.


—

🧾 Facts

The defendant (A) was standing trial at first instance for assault.

To obtain a lighter sentence, A forged a settlement-style document purporting to reflect the victim’s forgiveness and stamped it with a fake fingerprint.

When the court-appointed counsel noticed missing authentication (no ID copy or seal certificate), A doubled down:

Using a printed “settlement/no-punishment” form, A arranged for a third party to fill in the victim’s name and phone number.


A then submitted both forged documents to the court clerk, who was unaware of the falsification.



—

⚖️ Charges & Outcome

Convictions:

Forgery of a private document

Uttering (using) a forged private document


Sentence: 4 months’ imprisonment (custodial)



—

🧑‍⚖️ Court’s Reasoning

A intentionally deceived the court to influence sentencing, not once but twice, by fabricating evidence presented as mitigation.

The motive (sentence reduction), method (document forgery with false fingerprinting), and context (submission as sentencing material) rendered the conduct especially blameworthy.

Mitigation considered:

Admission of guilt

No prior criminal record before the offense

The offenses stood in a post-offense concurrence relationship under the Criminal Act, requiring consideration of overall sentencing fairness.


Despite mitigation, the gravity of undermining judicial trust justified imprisonment.



—

🧠 Context

Separately, A had already received six months’ imprisonment for assault, finalized in October 2025.

The forgery case proceeded independently, underscoring that procedural fraud can trigger standalone custodial exposure, even when aimed solely at leniency.



—

📌 Takeaways

Sentencing evidence is not “soft” evidence: falsifying mitigation materials can be punished more severely than the underlying offense’s hoped-for reduction.

Forgery aimed at the court—as opposed to private gain—will draw heightened scrutiny.

Counsel’s diligence matters: gaps in authentication can surface deeper misconduct and escalate consequences.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/214797