[주민등록법위반,주택건설촉진법위반][공1992.2.15.(914),727]
Whether it constitutes a violation of Article 10(2) of the Resident Registration Act and a false report under Article 21(2)1 of the Resident Registration Act for making a move-in report or move-in report more rapidly than the actual residence (negative)
A report of eviction or move-in cannot be deemed to violate the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Resident Registration Act by double filing of a report of resident registration on the ground that the actual residence is more rapid than the same person, and cannot be deemed to have reported false facts in view of the resident registration under Article 21(2)1 of the same Act.
Articles 10(2) and 21(2)1 of the Resident Registration Act
Defendant
A co-inspector;
Attorney Lee Young-hoon
Suwon District Court Decision 91No311 delivered on September 12, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Examining the record, the fact-finding by the court below cannot be deemed to violate the rules of evidence, and if the facts are the same, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.
Article 21 (2) 1 of the Resident Registration Act provides that a person who violates the provisions of Article 10 (2) of the same Act or who files a false report or application with respect to the resident registration or the resident registration certificate shall be punished. However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the provisions of Article 10 (2) of the same Act by double filing of resident registration reports on the ground that he/she has filed a moving-in report or a moving-in report with the same actual residence somewhat rapid, because he/she has filed a moving-in report or a moving-in report with the same actual residence, and cannot be deemed to have filed a false report with respect
In addition, as recognized by the court below, if the defendant moves to a residential place under the circumstances as determined by the court below, the defendant cannot be deemed to have received the house of this case by deceit or other unlawful means. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss it.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)