[허위공문서작성등피고사건][고집1980(형특),164]
The superintendent of the Office of Education fails to take legal measures against an unqualified teacher confirmed by the defendant, and the sex of the crime of abandonment of duties.
The crime of abandonment of duties is committed when the defendant who is the superintendent of the Office of Education confirms that there are 42 or more unqualified teachers appointed by the certificate of qualification for counterfeit teachers in his/her jurisdiction, and if he/she files a report on the delivery of doors for nine months or not until he/she is informed of such fact by the self-audit and newspaper report of the delivery of sentences, or neglects without taking measures under the Public Educational Officials
Article 122 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 4289Da244 delivered on October 19, 1956 (Supreme Court Decision 4211 delivered on November 19, 1956, Decision 122(1)1271 delivered on the summary of the decision)
Defendant 1 and one other
Prosecutor and Defendant 1
Daegu District Court Decision (78Gohap346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 356, 358, 414, 415, 566 (Merger)
Supreme Court Decision 79Do1668 Decided September 25, 1979
Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant 1 is reversed.
The sentence for the same defendant shall be suspended.
Of the facts charged against the same accused, the preparation of false official documents and the facts charged shall be acquitted.
The Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed.
(1) We examine Defendant 1’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the same Defendant.
The gist of Defendant 1’s appeal is as follows: (a) as the first instance court’s judgment, it is difficult for the Defendant to have known of the fact that the Defendant had failed to submit a false report to the lower court on the grounds that there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the fact that the Defendant had committed the crime of omission of official duties, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to have known of the fact that the Defendant had failed to submit a false report to the lower court on the grounds that it was against the principle of omission of official duties, and that there was an omission of official duties in the issuance of a false report to the lower court, and thus, the Defendant did not take any disciplinary measure against the Defendant, such as an omission of official duties, for the purpose of concealing the fact that there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s omission of official duties in the issuance of a false report to the lower court, and thus, it is difficult for the lower court to have known of the fact that there was no omission of official duties by the lower court in the issuance of a false official report to the lower court.
(A) If the facts charged against the abandonment of duties of the public prosecutor and the facts charged by the judgment of the court below are examined as follows, it is hard to find out that the above part of the facts charged were not stated as "to conceal the facts to the audit team or the audit team, and to abandon its duties by silent the recommendations of the vice superintendent of the board of education," and that there is no determination thereon, as pointed out in the court below, the public prosecutor did not prosecute the facts separate from the facts charged by the judgment of the court below, and it is clear by the indictment itself that the above act constitutes a crime of abandonment of duties, which is an omission of duties, and thus, the above part was not found to constitute a single content among the abandonment of duties, and the above part was not found to constitute a crime of omission of duties, and thus, it cannot be said that the court below did not recognize the above part as a crime of omission of duties, even if it was not found to have been found to have been found to have been lawful by the non-indicted 6 public education committee's recommendation and appointment of the above part as an inspector.
(B) According to the indictment of this case and the judgment of the court below as to the crime of false public document preparation and the crime of uttering, as stated in the above statement of reasons for appeal, there were errors in finding the facts not stated in the facts charged, and according to the report of this case on the issue reported to the delivery before remanding party members' inquiry reply, "the certificate of teacher's qualification cannot be issued and it was personal fraud" does not contain any part, and according to the documents on the order of dismissal for local workers which are bound with the records (the trial record 807-809 page) and the fact inquiry inquiry reply of the members before remand party, "Non-Indicted 1 was dismissed from office due to the above statement of the defendant's family letter approved by the defendant" in the above statement of reasons for the reason that "Non-Indicted 1 was not recorded in the above statement of reasons for the crime of uttering for the reason that the above part of the defendant's resignation was the same as that of the above statement of reasons for the defendant's dismissal for 17 days before returning to the above statement of reasons for dismissal for 17 days."
Therefore, the court below held that the above false official document preparation and its exercise should be regarded as concurrent crimes with the above crime of abandonment of duty, and thus, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it does not consider the grounds for appeal on each unfair sentencing, and therefore, it reverses the part of the judgment below and decides again after pleading pursuant to Article 364(6)
From February 1, 1974 to August 11, 1978, Defendant 1 was the person who served as the superintendent of the Office of Education at the Standing Committee at the Standing Committee from February 1, 1978. From October 19, 1977, Nonindicted 1 and 5, who had served in the secondary education and educational circles at the time of the self-audit from Nonindicted 4 at the same Board of Education Director at the time, reported that he/she would be six or more teachers who had served in the same Board of Education at the time when he/she forged a teacher's license and used the above forged certificate, and later, he/she discovered 7-8 non-qualified teachers appointed as above through the self-inspection and confirmed that the number of them would reach 42 persons without delay until the date of issuance of the above certificate of qualifications until the date when he/she is found to have violated the duty of disclosure of qualifications and the duty of disclosure of qualifications to the supervisory organization, as well as the duty of disclosure of qualifications to the public education committee.
The above-mentioned facts shall:
1. Statement corresponding thereto in the original judgment and the trial court before and after the remanding of the defendant;
1. Each statement corresponding to the above part at the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment and the court's judgment, which corresponds to non-indicted 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10
1. Part of the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to it;
1. Part of the statement statement prepared by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 2, 3, 7, and 10, corresponding to this part of the protocol of statement
1. Each part of the statements, statements, or developments written in Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 corresponding thereto
1. Each existing one (No. 101) book (No. 101) for the investigation into issuance of a forged certificate of qualification for teacher, certificate of qualification for teacher, certificate of issuance of a certificate of qualification for teacher or a copy thereof, or one copy thereof (No. 2 through 96); and
In full view of the foregoing, the certification is sufficient.
On the other hand, the judgment of the defendant falls under Article 122 of the Criminal Act. The defendant's order of non-satisfy and the judgment of the court below falls under the category of Article 122 of the Criminal Act. The defendant's order of non-satisfy shall be chosen to be sentenced to imprisonment in eight months, and the sixty-five days of detention prior to the sentence shall be included in the above sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the same Act. The defendant is a first offender, who has been awarded a number of orders such as the Order of Green Cho Jae-sung and the Order of Civilization, the Order of Civilization, and the Order of Civil Disturbion, etc., which have been delivered to the educational community for forty years and has been accumulated in his life due to the case in this case, he was dismissed from office as a superintendent of education, and since his mistake is remarkably divided in depth, the sentence of the above sentence
Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1 of the public prosecutor, the defendant prepared a report on the so-called sexual case that Nonindicted 1 and 5 who, prior to the report of the above suspected sexual case, received money of KRW 1,60,000 from Nonindicted 12, 13, who was the senior defendant in the newspaper, for the purpose of exercising the right at the office of office of the education committee at the time when the education committee's defendant's letter of intent, submitted a report on the so-called sexual case with the intention of receiving KRW 1,60,000 from the senior citizen school teacher's teacher's teacher's office at the time, the defendant intentionally omitted the crime of Nonindicted 1 in the draft report in order to conceal the above teachers' certificate despite the escape from the letter of intent, and submitted it to the literature delivery to the public prosecutor's office, prior to the report of the above suspected sexual case, it was discovered that Nonindicted 1 and 5 were forged through the self-audit of the above board of education committee's auditor's certificate and that the above certificate was not guilty.
(2) We examine the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 2.
The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that the court below found the defendant 2 not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, but there is an error of misconception of the facts by the rules of evidence.
In other words, in full view of the defendant's interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the defendant and the prosecutor's interrogation protocol and the defendant's statement in the court of the court below, the defendant 2 can be acknowledged as holding 50,000 won as a case of preparing a fake certificate and holding it to the non-indicted 5 who is a public official, even though he knows that he cannot obtain a teacher's qualification. If he collected the statement of the defendant's qualification certificate, the statement of the non-indicted 5's self-written statement and the suspect interrogation protocol of the non-indicted 5 in the prosecutor's preparation, etc. on the non-indicted 5 of the defendant's written statement and the prosecutor's written statement, he could not dismiss the part of the defendant's non-guilty judgment on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the court below conspired as the facts charged in forging the teacher's qualification certificate of the entry in the facts charged, or discovered the forged fact or found the non-indicted 50,000 won, and there is no evidence to find the defendant's selection of the facts charged.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 is just, and the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(3)It is so decided as per Disposition as to the above reasons.
Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)