[공무상비밀표시무효][공1979.6.1.(609),11809]
Whether it constitutes a crime of invalidation of an indication of public duty when a husband's entry into a dry field where the wife is prohibited from entering, disregarding the disposition of prohibition of entry by the obligor.
Inasmuch as an order of provisional disposition to prohibit entry into and exit from a husband to a debtor does not affect the wife, it cannot be said that the effect of the order of provisional disposition to prohibit entry into and exit from a dry field where the wife neglected it and entered into a dry field where entry into and exit from such field was prohibited has been impaired.
Article 140 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 74Do1896 Delivered on July 27, 1976
Defendant
Attorney Park Byung-chul
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 76No10569 delivered on April 13, 1977
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the evidence cited by the original judgment, the defendant recognized that he was engaged in the first work by disregarding the above public notice board and the ballon while he was aware of the fact that he had set up a public notice board around the land of this case as balton, and that he was not allowed to enter without permission, as a result of the execution of the provisional disposition of prohibition of entry into dry field (58 square meters) by the non-indicted who is the husband of the defendant, who was the non-indicted, as the debtor, and determined that it was an act of impairing the utility of the indication of the compulsory disposition that
However, if the order of provisional disposition on entry and exit is against the non-indicted who is the debtor, even though the defendant was identified as the non-indicted, the order's effect does not reach the defendant, and there is no recognition of the fact that the non-indicted, who is the husband, entered the defendant, and the defendant's wife entered the dry field in which the above public notice board and the bridge are prohibited from entering the defendant, even if the defendant's wife neglected the above public notice board and the bridge, it cannot be said that it constitutes a crime of invalidation of official secrets (Article 140 of the Criminal Act) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 60Do781, Oct. 12, 610; 74Do1896, Jul. 27, 76). Accordingly, it is reversed as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)