공무상표시무효
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, although the defendant could have convicted him of the facts charged, is erroneous or her of the facts charged (the decision of the court of first instance is unlawful). 2. The court of first instance, which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles or the misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of the main points of the grounds for appeal
A. The crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act is established by damaging or concealing “an indication that a public official has conducted a specific compulsory disposition, such as sealing, seizure of movable property, possession of real estate, etc.” in relation to his/her duties, or by other means. In cases where the public official’s abuse of official authority and thus can be deemed legally null and void or non-existent because it is obviously an indication of sealing or seizure or other compulsory disposition that has been illegally conducted and thus, it does not constitute a crime of invalidation in the line of duty even if it does not constitute an object of the crime of invalidation in the line of duty. However, even if the procedural or substantive defect in the indication of sealing, etc. conducted by the public official is found objectively and generally by the public official, such indication is the object of the crime of invalidation in the line of official duty unless revoked by a legitimate procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1757, Jan. 16, 2001).
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court in this case, the head of Gangnam-gu rendered a disposition of business suspension for 60 days from June 1, 2012 to July 30, 2012 with respect to accommodation business operated by the hotel of this case, and public officials belonging to Gangnam-gu Office attached a notice indicating the contents of the above business suspension (business suspension disposition) at various places, such as the entrance of the above hotel.