According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendants jointly prepared a document stating that the non-indicted should be expelled under the title of the application for expulsion of persons who will be expelled under the title of the application for expulsion of persons who will be jointly signed by the defendant as of January 27, 1978, and that the non-indicted is the chief of the first division cooperative of the Seoul Wood Mutual Aid Association, and that the non-indicted is applied for the expulsion pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, and confirmed that the non-indicted has reached the chief of the National Rehabilitation Center. According to Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the method of the petition is legal, and all of the two petitioners are deemed to have been submitted by the same person, and therefore, the application for expulsion of persons who submitted by the defendants is deemed to have been made by the same person, so it cannot be viewed as an unlawful petition without an essential nature as a petition, and thus rejected the application of Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act and

However, upon examining the application for expulsion submitted by the Defendants according to the records, the above application contains matters of petition as stipulated in Article 4 of the Petition Act, and clearly indicate the name, address, occupation, purpose and reason of the petitioner as stipulated in Article 6 of the Petition Act, and the fact that it was submitted to the government office in charge of the petition affairs and received and handled lawfully and lawfully. Meanwhile, Article 10 of the Petition Act provides that no petition may be filed with a false statement for the purpose of undermining another person's mother, and Article 12 of the same Act provides that no petition shall be filed for the purpose of causing harm to another person. As seen above, as long as the application for expulsion submitted by the Defendants has the substance as seen above, it is not accompanied by a document or reference document verifying the address of the petitioner (a reference document should be attached only when needed under Article 6 of the Petition Act) and it is difficult to readily conclude that the petition does not fall under Article 10 of the Petition Act without signing and sealing the petition.

Therefore, the court below reversed the original judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul Criminal District Court which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, since the interpretation of Articles 10 and 6 of the Petition Act has been completed and affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice)