[가혹행위][공1985.7.1.(755),864]
Whether abuse of authority under Article 62 of the Military Criminal Act is committed in case where the chief of the watchkeeping officer, after completing the watchkeeping service, serves as a subordinate for another reason.
The abuse of authority under Article 62 of the Military Criminal Act refers to the unlawful exercise of authority beyond the reasonable limit with respect to matters belonging to general official authority. Thus, an act of a person who does not have authority or his own authority and related business do not constitute such act. Thus, the act of a person who does not have authority or his own authority and related business do not constitute an act of a person who does not have authority, after completing the watchkeeping duty, and the act of a person who acts for another reason on the part of a subordinate is not an abuse of authority as the chief
Article 62 of the Military Criminal Act
Defendant
Military prosecutor;
Attorney Kim Il-chul
84 High Military Court Decision 84 High Military Court Decision 200Da8488 delivered on March 26, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.
The abuse of authority referred to in Article 62 (Cruel Act) of the Military Criminal Act refers to the unlawful exercise of authority over matters belonging to general duties and authority beyond a reasonable limit. Thus, an act of a lower-ranking person who does not have authority or an act irrelevant to his own authority shall not be deemed to be such act. According to the facts established by the lower court, the Defendant is a person who has a position as the duty leader responsible for the management of sentrys, and does not have a position as the duty leader responsible for the overall life of the members, and the Defendant has completed the duty of the duty leader responsible for the management of sentrys, and reported his duties by entering into the duty team. Nonindicted 1, a lower-ranking person, who was under the duty to promote the duty team, was flick up with the duty team, and did not constitute an abuse of authority by the lower-ranking person, and the lower-ranking person, who was affiliated with the same force team, did not constitute an abuse of authority or an abuse of authority by the lower-ranking person. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act of abuse of authority and the duty under Article 2808 (3).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)