[2] Whether a document used by a public office can be seen as “documents used by a public office,” in a case where a statement of criminal intent and police preparation is not completed, and it is not signed, sealed, or stamped by the originator and the person who made a statement (affirmative)

[3] Whether an act of detained a victim with a detention warrant issued by deceiving a prosecutor and a judge in exclusive charge of the warrant after making a false statement of statement, etc. to detain the victim by a person who performs or assists in the duties concerning the restraint of the human body constitutes a crime of abuse of authority (affirmative)

[2] In the crime of harboring public documents under Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Code, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant is a document used by a public office and that the document will be effective by concealing it. Since the statement prepared by the police is not complete and the originator and the statement are not signed, sealed or stamped, it cannot be said that it is not a document used by a public office even if it is not effective as an official document.

[3] The crime of confinement may be committed in the form of an indirect crime. As such, in a case where a person who performs or assists in the duties concerning the restraint of the human body prepares a false statement, etc. to detain the victim, and applies for the detention warrant along with the records, and the written statement, etc. is made by deceiving the prosecutor who is in exclusive charge of the warrant and the judge who knows that the false statement, etc. is made, and is detained under the warrant after being issued the warrant, the crime of abuse of authority under Article 124(1)

The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt, but it does not require that the degree of exclusion from all possible doubts that are unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994; 2004Do221, Jun. 25, 2004).

The court below, solely on the ground of the reversal of the statement in the court, cannot immediately deny the credibility of the statement in the prosecutor's office, and it recognizes the existence of violence or intimidation by the prosecutor's office at the time of the prosecution investigation. The first and the second prosecutor's office's statements in the prosecution contain concrete and detailed procedures until the prosecution is prepared with respect to the first prosecutor's protocol, circumstances, and the statements made by the Defendants at the time are consistent with each other. The first prosecutor's statement in the court of first instance cannot be ruled out that the defendants were subject to criminal punishment due to their statements, and it cannot be ruled out that there is a possibility that the prosecutor's statement in the prosecutor's office of 1 and Kim Jong-young has sufficiently credibility, and that there is no possibility that the prosecutor's statement in the prosecutor's office of the police after the emergency arrest is contrary to objective facts and objective facts, and that there is no violation of the legal principles as to the credibility of the statements in the prosecutor's office and the first prosecutor's office's judgment against the defendant's testimony in violation of the aforementioned legal principles.

2. As to concealment of public documents

The criminal intent in the crime of harboring public documents under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act is sufficiently aware of the fact that it is a document used by a public office to the defendant and that it would impair its utility by concealing it. Since the statement prepared by the police is not completed and the originator and the person who made the statement are not signing, sealing or stamped, it cannot be said that it is not a document used by a public office even if it is not effective (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Do1127, Oct. 27, 1980; 86Do2799, Apr. 14, 1987, etc.).

According to Non-Indicted 4's prosecutor's office and court of first instance, in order to confirm whether the indictment against Non-Indicted 3 was taken over the PC at Non-Indicted 4's office, such as the contents of Non-Indicted 1's report, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance convicting Non-Indicted 4 of this part of the charges on the ground that it is recognized that the defendant's writing was concealed by concealing Non-Indicted 4's written statement without binding it on investigation records, and that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of concealment of public documents by misunderstanding the facts and concealing the facts or concealing the public documents by concealing Non-Indicted 4's written statement in light of the above legal principles, the court below also erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of concealment of public documents by misunderstanding the facts and concealing the facts.

3. As to abuse of authority and confinement

Since the crime of confinement may be committed in the form of an indirect crime, if a person who performs or assists in the duties concerning the restraint of the human body prepares a false statement of statement, etc. to arrest the victim, and applies for a detention warrant accompanied by the records. The crime of abuse of authority and confinement under Article 124(1) of the Criminal Act is established if a prosecutor who is not aware of the false statement of statement, etc. and a judge in exclusive charge of the warrant issued the detention warrant, and the victim is detained under the warrant.

The court below found the defendant guilty on August 8, 2001, after preparing a false statement of evidence with respect to the non-indicted 3 who is difficult to be detained on the sole basis of the crime of injury, and omitted the reference materials and the statement of witness to non-indicted 4, who is a public document, in the records of the application for detention warrant, and prepared to non-indicted 3 a false statement of facts that the defendant's act of forging and uttering private documents, 3.6 million won credit card price fraud, 2.6 million won credit card price fraud, 40 million won fraud, and 40 million won credit fraud, and the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by abusing the legal principles as to the above crime of abuse of authority from the date of obtaining a detention warrant from the judge in exclusive charge of the Busan District Court on August 9, 200 to September 3, 200.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)