Any copies of documents or drawings reproduced using the electronic reproduction machines, facsimile telegraphs or other similar apparatus should be considered as document or drawing in Criminal Law. But it seems not to coincide with the concept of copy and meaning of duplicated document. Especially as far as media records, such as another person's electromagnetic records are concerned, there are many unsettled problems. The interests protected by law of crime concerning Documents are public credibility. so I think that constituent elements of a crime have to be interpreted by means of improving public credibility. That's to say that we should connect with crime-concerning condition and something protected by criminal law. but Supreme court didn't accept copies of documents concerning copy from documents to electromagnetic records in 2007do7480 and 2008do 5200. Any copies of documents should be protected because they establish the existence of original documents. that's reason that Any copies of documents reproduced using the electronic reproduction machines, facsimile telegraphs or other similar apparatus should be considered as document or drawing in Criminal Law. So someone would scan the documents and make new electromagnetic reproduction records of the scanned document, we must regard that as duplicated documents.

[대상판결 1] 대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도7480 판결
  사실관계
  판시사항
  판결이유
 [대상판결 2] 대법원 2008. 10. 23. 선고 2008도5200 판결
  사실관계
  판결요지
  판결이유
 〔연구〕
  문제의 제기
  위조범죄의 보호법익과 복사물
  위조행위와 복사행위
  위조문서의 행사방법
  결론-사안의 해결
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 김혜경(계명대학교 법경대학 조교수, 법학박사) | Kim, Hye Kyung