[사문서위조·위조사문서행사·세무사법위반][공2007하,1970]
[1] Whether the provisions of the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices can be applied to "the act of divulging secrets," which is related to the act of disclosing secrets on duty by a certified tax accountant, etc. and a crime against another (negative)
[2] The case holding that the act of receiving a document stating the name of the rental business operator and the location of the business operator who he kept in his custody from the clerk of the certified tax accountant does not constitute a joint principal offender for the crime of divulgence of secrets
[1] The provisions of the general provisions of the Criminal Act on accomplices cannot be applied to a crime involving a person who is or was a certified tax accountant or his/her current or former office worker under Article 22(1)2 and Article 11 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, and there is no provision punishing a person who is or was a certified tax accountant to divulge secrets that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties, and there is no provision punishing a person who is or was a certified tax accountant to divulge secrets. Since an office worker of a certified tax accountant discloses secrets that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties and an act of disclosure of such secrets is related to a crime involving a person who is or
[2] The case holding that the act of receiving a document stating the name of a rental business operator and the location of a business operator who he had been in his custody from a certified tax accountant's office employee does not constitute a joint principal offender for the crime of divulging official secrets
[1] Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 11 and 22(1)2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act / [2] Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 11 and 22(1)2 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do2747 delivered on March 12, 1985 (Gong1985, 580) Supreme Court Decision 87Do2451 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong1988, 928) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158 Delivered on December 28, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 440) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1696 Delivered on July 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2100) Supreme Court Decision 204Do3994 Delivered on October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1991)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorneys Cho Tae-cheon et al.
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007No121 Decided July 25, 2007
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The provisions of the General Provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices cannot be applied to a crime against an opposite offender who requires the existence of two or more opposite acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2747, Mar. 12, 1985; 87Do2451, Apr. 25, 198; 2001Do5158, Dec. 28, 2001; 2002Do1696, Jul. 22, 2002; 2004Do3994, Oct. 28, 2004).
In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, an employee of the tax accountant office, received a document stating the name, resident registration number, address, and location of Nonindicted 2, etc. of the rental business operator, who was in custody in the said tax accountant office from Nonindicted 1, in collusion with the said Nonindicted 1, who had been in custody in the said tax accountant office, and caused the said Nonindicted 1 to divulge any confidential
However, Article 22(1)2 and Article 11 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act only punishs a person who was or was a certified tax accountant or his office employee to divulge confidential information that he had learned in the course of performing his duties, and the Certified Tax Accountant Act does not punish the other party who was exposed to the secrets. Since the act of disclosing confidential information that he had learned in the course of performing his duties and the act of disclosing such confidential information by the above non-indicted 1, who is an employee of the certified tax accountant office, is in a relation to the other party, and the act of disclosing such confidential information by the defendant is not applicable to such counter-party 1, the court below determined that the defendant is a joint principal offender with regard to the crime of divulging secrets in the course of performing his duties under the Certified Tax Accountant Act. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which violated the Certified Tax Accountant Act cannot be maintained as it is, and since the court below rendered a single sentence on all the remaining convictions in the concurrent crimes relationship with this part under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment below
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)