직무유기등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, C, E, and F in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of preparing false official documents and exercising false official documents among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
In so doing, contrary to each of the above Defendants’ grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the preparation of false official document, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.
Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant F, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be
2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal
A. In the crime of abandonment of duties stipulated in Article 122 of the Criminal Act, the term “when a public official neglects his/her duties” is not established in all cases where the public official neglects his/her abstract duty by law, internal rules, etc., but is likely to impair the function of the State and cause damage to the people, such as the unauthorized removal of the workplace and the waiver of the consciousness of duties.
Thus, if a person performs his/her duties with the intention of performing his/her duties, it is not recognized that the contents of his/her duties are illegal, and even if a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties due to neglect, neglect, neglect, etc. or failure to perform his/her duties formally or formally, the crime of abandonment of duties is not established.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do229 Decided April 10, 2014; 83Do3260 Decided March 27, 1984, etc.).