특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)등
The judgment below
The conviction part against Defendant A shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal
A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted as to the crime committed, the lower court was justifiable to have found the criminal guilty among the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the portion of innocence) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime.
B. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal regarding Defendant A’s abandonment of one’s duty on July 25, 2010.
1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court also established both the crime of avoidance and the crime of abandonment of duties with respect to the crime of abandonment of one’s own duties on July 25, 2010, and the two crimes are in a substantive concurrent relationship.
The judgment of the first instance court was affirmed as it is.
2) However, it is difficult to accept such determination by the lower court for the following reasons.
A) If a police officer discovered an offender on the part of a police officer but did not take appropriate measures in accordance with his/her duties and instead let such offender escape, the illegality in violation of his/her duties is also included in the crime committed.
Therefore, in such a case, only the crime committed is established, and the crime of abandonment of duty of the omission offender is not established separately (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Do51, May 10, 1996; 2005Do3909, Oct. 19, 2006; 2005Do3909, etc.). Meanwhile, the crime of abandonment of duty of the crime committed by the omission offender also falls short of the number by allowing the criminal to escape, but the crime committed while the crime is in progress and is completed only when the crime is completed (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do577, Sept. 5, 1995; 2012Do6027, Aug. 30, 2012, etc.) of the facts charged in the instant case.