According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's act of refusing to obtain a license in collusion with the public official in charge of private taxi transport business under Article 6 of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 3913 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation No. 865 of Sep. 19, 1987), and the criteria for examination of private taxi transport business license, which is the direction of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 13-2 of the above Enforcement Rule, is strictly provided for the requirements for private taxi transport business license, and there is no room for discretion to obtain a licensing authority because of the strict provision of the requirements for private taxi transport business license, and the method of calculating the driving experience of private taxi transport business license, as long as the public official in charge of private taxi transport business submitted by the applicant has failed to find that it is false, the act of the defendant's act of refusing to obtain a license in general taxi transport business.

In general, the administrative agency's disposition of authorization and permission based on the application form is to examine and decide the requirements for authorization and permission based on the application form and the accompanying materials, and this is based on the premise that the grounds for application form are not inconsistent with the facts. Thus, even though the applicant stated false facts in the application form and attached false supporting materials, if the administrative agency conducts the remaining disposition of authorization and permission that is somewhat believed to be true as to the grounds for application form, it would be due to insufficient examination by the administrative agency, and it cannot be viewed as due to fraudulent means by the applicant (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do324 delivered on July 8, 197; Supreme Court Decision 76Do371 delivered on April 27, 197; Supreme Court Decision 77Do3199 delivered on December 27, 197; Supreme Court Decision 82Do207 delivered on December 14, 1982).

Even if the defendant prepared and delivered false explanatory materials, etc. to accomplices as at the time of the original trial and filed an application with the Mayor of Daejeon, if the public official in charge of receiving and examining the application properly investigated the facts of the reason for the application, the reason for the application would have been false. If the other private taxi transport business license for which the reason for the application and accompanying documents are believed to be true without investigating the facts of the reason for the application, it would be nothing more than the result that the public official in charge of the above public official in charge did not sufficiently examine the reason for the application, and it cannot be said that the defendant's act interfered with the execution of the public official in charge of the above public official in charge due to the defendant's act. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties due to fraudulent means.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)