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.

[대상 판결] 대법원 2016. 7. 14. 선고 2016도2081 판결
 [연 구]
  Ⅰ. 논의 대상과 검토범위
  Ⅱ. 대법원 판결례 유형 분석
   1. 개 요
   2. 유형별 특징과 대법원의 평가요약
   3. 소 결
  Ⅲ. 대상판결 사안에 대한 각급 법원의 입장
   1. 제1심 법원
   2. 제2심 법원
   3. 대법원
  Ⅳ. 해석론
   1. 국 내
   2. 독일 관련 해석론
   3. 소 결
  Ⅴ. 결 어
   1. 사문서위조 및 동행사죄의 성립여부
   2. 대상판결에서 성립 가능한 기타 범죄

• 김성룡(Professor, School of Law, Kyungpook National University, Dr. iur.) | Kim, Sung–Ryong