1999.12.20

1997 (A) 1227

Keishu Vol. 53, No. 9, at 1495

Decision upon the case where an act of creating and uttering one's curriculum vitae with a false name and so forth is ruled to constitute forgery of private documents with signature or seal and uttering of the same

Criminal case of forgery of private documents with signature or seal, uttering of the same

Decision of the First Petty Bench, dismissed

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of October 20, 1997

The act of creating and uttering one's curriculum vitae, an employment contract, etc. with a false name and so forth entered, even if a photograph of his own face was pasted or even if he did not have the intention of avoiding his own responsibilities arising from each of the documents, shall constitute forgery of private documents with signature or seal and uttering of the same.

Article 159, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code
A person who, for the purpose of uttering forged documents or drawings regarding rights, duties or attestation of facts using another's seal or signature, or forged documents or drawings regarding rights, duties or attestation of facts using a forged seal or signature of another shall be sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a term longer than 3 months up to 5 years.

Article 161, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code
A person who uttered any document or drawing referred to in the preceding two Articles shall be punished with the same sentence as for a person who forged or altered the said document or drawing, or made false entry.

This jokoku appeal shall be dismissed.

In the statement of grounds for the jokoku appeal presented by Attorney KOMORI Sakae, the point alleging conflict with Article 27, Article 31 of the Constitution is, in substance, no more than an assertion of errors in application/construction of law, and the point alleging conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution lacks a premise, because according to the case record, there is no such fact found that the defendant was unjustly treated to his disadvantage by reason of his affiliation with a particular religious body, and the grounds for the jokoku appeal stated by the defendant himself are no more than an assertion of errors in application/construction of law and errors in fact-finding, none of which falls under any of the grounds for a jokoku appeal specified in Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In view of the arguments, this Court rules on the case ex officio.
[Summary] As the true nature of forgery of a private document is understood to misrepresent the identity of the holder of the document with the creator of the document (see Case 1983 (A) No. 257, Judgment of the Second Petty Bench on February 17, 1984, Keishu Vol. 38, No. 3, at 336; Case 1993 (A) No. 135, Decision of the First Petty Bench on October 5, 1993, Keishu Vol. 47, No. 8, at 7) as a person, according to the ruling of the original judgment, the defendant intended to find employment using a false name P, created his curriculum vitae in the name of P entering a false name, date of birth, address, career record and so forth, pasting a photograph of the defendant's face and putting a seal thereon as well as an employment contract in the name of P entering a false name, etc. and putting a seal thereon, etc., so in the light of the nature, function and so forth of these documents, even if a photograph of his own face was pasted, or even if he did not have the intention of avoiding his own responsibilities arising from each of the said documents, it is obvious that the holder indicated on these documents is a person different from the defendant, it should be held true that he caused a lack of identity between the holder and the creator as a person. Hence, the ruling of the second-instance court is that each of the defendant's acts constitutes the criminal offense of forgery of private documents with signature or seal, and uttering of the same.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 414, Article 386(1)(iii), the proviso to Article 181(1) of the same law, the justices rule unanimously upon the case as rendered in the main text of the decision.

Justice ONO Motoo
Justice ENDO Mitsuo
Justice IJIMA Kazutomo
Justice FUJII Masao
Justice OHDE Takao