[2] In a case where the defendant filed a civil petition with a citizen newspaper, a citizen portal of the government, for the purpose of having victims who are professors of private universities be subject to disciplinary action, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding the defendant guilty on the ground that the victims are private school teachers, and thus, the defendant's act does not constitute an

However, a private school teacher is appointed and dismissed by a school juristic person or a manager of a private school (Article 53 and Article 53-2 of the Private School Act), and his appointment and dismissal are governed by a private school employment contract, and a private school teacher is paid wages from a school juristic person, etc. in return for educating students. Thus, in principle, the relationship between a school juristic person, etc. and a private school teacher is a private law relationship in principle. Although an appointment and dismissal person reports to the competent agency on the appointment and dismissal of a private school teacher, and the competent agency, in certain cases, provides guidance, supervision and support to a school juristic person, etc. (Article 54 of the Private School Act), which is entitled to demand dismissal or disciplinary action against a person with the authority to appoint and dismiss (Article 54 of the Private School Act), and guarantees the status, etc. of a private school teacher, who is a public school teacher, to the same extent as a public educational official’s private school teacher. However, this does not change the purport

On the other hand, the interpretation of penal law should be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant because it is contrary to the principle of no punishment without law.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret that disciplinary action against a private school teacher is not included in the "Disciplinary Action" under Article 156 of the Criminal Act.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the "Disciplinary Action" in the crime of false accusation, although the victims are private school teachers, and the defendant's act did not constitute a crime of false accusation, where the defendant filed a civil petition at the citizen newspaper and the citizen newspaper operated by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission for the purpose of having the victims of private universities undergo disciplinary action

(1) Article 156 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who reports false facts to a public office or a public official for the purpose of having a criminal or disciplinary punishment imposed upon another person. Here, “Disciplinary action” refers to personal sanctions imposed on the maintenance of order in supervisory relations under public law (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10202, Nov. 25, 2010).

However, a private school teacher is appointed and dismissed by a school juristic person or a manager of a private school (Article 53 and Article 53-2 of the Private School Act), and his appointment and dismissal are governed by a private school employment contract, and since a private school teacher receives wages from a school juristic person, etc. in return for educating students, the relationship between the school juristic person, etc. and the private school teacher is, in principle, a legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da11689, Jul. 30, 1996). Thus, the appointment and dismissal should be reported to the competent agency on the appointment and dismissal of the private school teacher. In certain cases, the competent agency has imposed guidance, supervision and regulation on the school juristic person, etc. (Article 54 of the Private School Act) upon the request of the person who has the authority to appoint and dismiss the school, and guarantees that the status, etc. is equal to that of the national or public school teacher who is a public school teacher, but this does not correspond to the purport of the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 200Hun-Ga365, Apr. 16, 2005.

Meanwhile, the interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no crime without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret that disciplinary action against a private school teacher is not included in the "Disciplinary Action" under Article 156 of the Criminal Act.

(2) Examining the record in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 are professors of ○ University and △△ University, and thus, the Defendant filed a civil petition with the citizen questioning, which is a citizen portal operated by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, for the purpose of having the Defendant be subject to disciplinary action, such act does not constitute a crime of false accusation.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted each of the above charges of false accusation, and thus, the lower court is bound to have erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Disciplinary Action” in the crime of false accusation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The remaining grounds of appeal are examined as to each of the following facts charged (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the grounds of appeal filed after the expiration of the submission period).

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted all of the charges except the aforementioned charges as stated in paragraph (1) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense.

3. Conclusion

As seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the charge of false accusation through the citizen questioning should be reversed illegally. As such, the court below affirmed all the facts charged in each of the above part and the remaining facts charged, and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced one punishment on the ground that there is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)