[Reporter’s Notebook] Electronic Documents Trapped by a 20-Year-Old Precedent

Forged Electronic Documents Used to Cancel Tenant Registration
Only Paper Recognized as Documents: Legal Loopholes Created by Outdated Interpretations
Legal System Must Be Updated to Keep Pace with the Digital Age

"Does it make sense that someone can forge a seal that affects another person’s life and not be punished for it?"

This is what a victim said during the reporting process for the article "Electronic Document Forgery in Jeonse Fraud... Not Prosecuted Because It’s Not on Paper," published by The Asia Business Daily on May 19. The victim experienced the cancellation of their leasehold registration through a forged electronic document created without their consent. A judicial scrivener representing the landlord used Photoshop to fabricate an image of the victim’s seal, then prepared an application to lift the leasehold registration order and a power of attorney, submitting the files to the court. However, this judicial scrivener was cleared of all charges. The prosecution judged that the forged electronic file did not qualify as a “document” under the crime of private document forgery, since it was not a paper document.

The Supreme Court precedents denying the document status of electronic documents were issued between 2006 and 2007. At that time, the Supreme Court found it difficult to consider electronic records displayed on a computer screen as documents under criminal law. The problem is that the reality today is vastly different from when those precedents were set. Back then, electronic litigation had not yet been fully introduced, and electronic contracts and mobile documents were not widespread. Today, even warrants requested by investigative agencies to the courts are handled electronically. Most public administration, including financial work, is now carried out using electronic documents.

There are, in fact, some legal provisions that can punish crimes involving manipulation of electronic records. Investigative agencies have sometimes applied different criminal charges, such as falsification of official electronic records, depending on the case. However, this incident fell into a gray area where even those charges were difficult to apply, because the forged file was not considered an official record stored in the court’s computerized system. As a result, even though someone used another person’s name and seal, criminal punishment proved difficult.

The current legal system carries the risk of distorting the link between actions and accountability. For example, consider a case where a judicial scrivener for the landlord saves a file containing a forged seal to a computer and then simply instructs an office worker to print it out. According to case law applied in the legal field, the act of the employee who merely performed the printing work is more closely linked to the crime of document forgery than the act of the judicial scrivener who actually falsified the content of the power of attorney.

After the report, the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation (HUG) decided not to reclaim the deposit from the victim. The organization also announced plans to pursue legal action against the landlord and the judicial scrivener. While this is fortunate, the victim still had to spend time and money to regain a right that should have been guaranteed, and public institutions wasted unnecessary administrative resources.

Electronic documents are a fundamental part of our society’s infrastructure. If regulations and rights protection mechanisms remain stuck in the era of paper documents, such cases of harm will inevitably continue. We must question whether a precedent from 20 years ago can still explain today’s reality. It is time to urgently address the legal vacuum in punishing electronic document forgery.

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