In a case where the Defendant was indicted for violating the Resident Registration Act on the ground that the Defendant’s act constitutes punishment under Article 37 subparag. 5 of the same Act on the ground that the Defendant’s act constitutes a person subject to punishment under Article 37 subparag. 5 of the same Act, in a case where: (a) as the Defendant was in charge of collecting claims against Party A, it was necessary to submit a certified copy or abstract of the resident registration card of Party A, which is the father of Party B; (b) and (c) Party C bank falsely submitted an application for perusal or issuance of a certified copy of

In a case where the defendant, who is an employee of a credit information company, was in charge of collecting claims against Gap in the course of applying for ownership transfer registration by inheritance for real estate owned by Gap's father in subrogation of Gap, and it was necessary to submit a certified copy of the network Eul in the process of applying for ownership transfer registration by inheritance, and Byung bank submitted to the community service center the "application for perusal or issuance of the certified copy of the resident registration record card" which was falsely stated as if Eul had claims against the network, and was prosecuted for violation of the Resident Registration Act, the court affirmed the judgment below convicting the defendant in the same purport on the ground that the defendant's act was issued with a certified copy of the resident registration record card in violation of Article 29 (2) through (4) of the same Act by fraud or other improper means and constitutes punishment under Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the same Act.

Article 29(2)6 and (4), and Article 37 subparag. 5 of the Resident Registration Act; Article 47(4) and [Attachment Table 2] subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Resident Registration Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23825, Jun. 1, 2012);

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011No1594 decided December 23, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 29 (2) of the Resident Registration Act provides that an application for the inspection of a resident registration record card or for the issuance of a certified copy or abstract thereof may, in principle, be filed by the principal or a member of the household: Provided, That only when delegated by the principal or a member of the household or when falling under any of subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the above paragraph, an application for the inspection of a resident registration record card or for the issuance of a certified copy or abstract thereof may be filed. Paragraph (4) of the same Article strictly limits the persons eligible for the inspection of a resident registration record card or for the issuance of a certified copy or abstract thereof by providing that only the person prescribed by Presidential Decree falls under any of subparagraphs 6 through 7 of the above paragraph (2), while Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the same Act provides that "a person who inspects another person's resident registration record card or obtains the certified copy or abstract thereof by fraud or other improper means in violation of Article 29 (2) through (4) of the same Act shall not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 29 (2) through (4) of the same Act.

According to the judgment below and the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the defendant, who is an employee of a credit information company, was in charge of collecting non-indicted 1's claims, and the defendant needs to submit a certified copy of the deceased non-indicted 2's resident registration card in the process of filing an application for ownership transfer registration by inheritance on the real estate owned by the deceased non-indicted 1's father in subrogation of the non-indicted 1, and it is recognized that the defendant submitted the "application for inspection or delivery of a certified copy of the resident registration card" which was falsely stated as one copy of the deceased non-indicted 2's resident registration card to the community service center as if the deceased non-indicted 2 had a claim of KRW 1,346,872 to the deceased non-indicted 2, and that the defendant could not request the inspection and delivery of the abstract of the resident registration card to the non-indicted 2 by means of Article 29 (2) 6 and (4) of the Resident Registration Act and Article 29 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23825 of Jun. 1, 20120) [Attachment 2] The defendant may request for inspection and delivery of the abstract of the bond.

In light of the above legal principles, the above act of the defendant is subject to punishment under Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Resident Registration Act where the abstract of the resident registration card was received by fraudulent or other illegal means in violation of Article 29 (2) through (4) of the Resident Registration Act.

In the same purport, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)