Whether there is any reason to reverse part of the concurrent crimes shall be reversed in whole.

The Defendant’s appeal is with merit only for the preparation of a false official document and the crime of uttering, but the court below has imposed the above facts on the same person as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below’s judgment on the same person shall be reversed in its entirety.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and five others

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Kim Jong-sik, and Lee Jong-ho (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel Lee Jong-ho, Counsel Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant 2)-apapap ( Counsel for defendant 3)-apapon ( Counsel for defendant 4)

Daegu High Court Decision 79No182 delivered on May 29, 1979

The part against Defendant 1 and 3 in the original judgment is reversed, and these cases are remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The appeals filed by Defendant 5, 5, 4, and 6 are dismissed.

The number of days under detention after the filing of an appeal by Defendant 4 shall be included in the original sentence to the same person.

1. Defendant 1 and his defense counsel Kim Jong-ro, draft, and grounds of appeal after the transfer are examined together.

A. Part of the crime of abandonment of duties

With respect to one point:

The facts of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below are as follows: around February 1, 1974 to August 11, 1978, the defendant was in office as the superintendent of the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do; around October 19, 1977, defendant 4 who works for the above Board of Education and the educational department at the time of self-audit; and the person who is employed as a teacher with a forged teacher's certificate by co-defendant 1 at the court below was reported to six or more persons, such as non-indicted 1, etc., of Young-ri Sea School Teachers in the High School, and thereafter, the non-qualified teacher appointed as a forged qualification certificate was discovered about about 7-8 each month and its number reaches 35, and the above 42, as long as the above teacher's qualification certificate was issued until July 26, 1978, the court below's decision that the above teacher's dismissal or removal from his position can not be ordered to be made ex officio or without notification of the evidence and report.

With respect to the second point:

The court below is just in holding that the defendant has a duty to take appropriate measures, such as immediately reporting the fact to the door delivery to the supervisory agency, and allowing him to leave the order without delay, on the ground that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of abandonment of duty, and there is no error in the rules of law as to the time and method of taking measures to dismiss the above unqualified teachers, and the reason that the time and method of taking measures to dismiss the above unqualified teachers belong to the discretionary act of the defendant or is waiting to take all the measures as the completion of self-inspection as to whether or not other unqualified teachers belong to the above unqualified teachers, the court below does not constitute a case where there is a justifiable reason in this case.

B. The part concerning preparation of false official documents and the crime of uttering

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, on November 1, 1977, the defendant prepared a report on the so-called sexual case that he received KRW 1,600,00 from Nonindicted 2 and 3, who was reported in the newspaper, for the purpose of exercising the above teacher's license at the office of office of office of the education committee, to receive KRW 1,60,000, in response to the fact that the defendant 4 and the co-defendant 7 of the court below discovered that he forged the teacher's license and received KRW 7, who was appointed as the teacher's teacher's qualification before the above report of the suspected sexual case, the defendant 4 and the co-defendant 7 of the court below intentionally omitted the crime of defendant 4 in the draft report in order to conceal the forged case of the above teacher's qualification certificate even though he escaped in the letter, and made a false report to the public official's right to use the false official document, thereby making it clear that he had exercised it immediately.

However, according to the records of the first instance court's ruling concerning the issuance of dismissal order by local employees bound to the records (of note, 807-809 of the records of trial) and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry inquiry statement (of page 2539-2524 of the records of trial) held by the court below, when reporting the so-called suspected fact-finding case that is reported to the newspaper, the committee of education of the Gyeongbuk-do has accepted and handled the resignation of Defendant 4, who is the person concerned, as a member of the Council of Education, for the reason of the family circumstances of October 22, 197, 197, prior to the above newspaper report, and Defendant 4 also submitted a resignation on October 22, 1977, and submitted the above documents on the ground of the fact that the above members were removed from office as a member of the Council, and therefore, it can be concluded that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above facts that the above report was false or false, or that there was a false statement in the court's opinion.

2. Defendant 5’s grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the original judgment erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the preparation of false official documents, and it is returned to the fact that there was a misunderstanding of the facts which have been admitted without evidence, and that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the preparation of false official documents. When determining records, the facts cited in the original judgment can be justified in light of the legitimate evidence relationship cited in the original judgment. In addition, it is reasonable to find that there is no error in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence or without any evidence, and any other simple mistake cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case. In addition, the measures taken by the court below against the defendant as the preparation of false official documents and the exercise of the same shall

3. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 195 are also examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the court below erred in selecting evidence or failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and that the records are false, the facts cited in the judgment of the court below can be justified in light of the legitimate evidence relationship cited in the judgment of the court below. It is reasonable in light of the degree of recognition, and it cannot be said that there is a lack of evidence or a lack of sufficient deliberation. Therefore, the court below's argument is groundless.

4. The grounds of appeal by Defendant 4 and his defense counsel Kim Jong-sik are also examined.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the original judgment (including the first instance judgment maintained at the original judgment; hereinafter the same shall apply) contains any defect in illegality in which the amount of the accepted money by the defendant was erroneously recognized in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby the amount of the accepted money by the defendant is excessive. If records are recorded, the amount of the accepted money by the defendant stated in the original judgment can be justified in light of the legitimate evidence relationship cited in the original judgment, and it is reasonable to recognize it, and there is no reason that the rules of evidence are written down, or that there is any defect in

5. Defendant 6's grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the original judgment (including the first instance judgment maintained at the original judgment; hereinafter the same shall apply) has a defect of illegality found in violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment. However, if records are recorded, the facts cited in the original judgment should be considered in light of the legitimate evidence relationship cited in the original judgment, and it is reasonable to recognize it, and there is no reason to establish the rules of evidence, such as load, etc., or there is no reason to find any defect of illegality. Therefore, the argument is groundless

6. Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant conspireds with the non-indicted 4, who was in charge of issuing a teacher's license in the education division such as the education division, etc. of the Standingbuk-do and the educational affairs division of the Standing Winter-do, to forge his teacher's license with the non-indicted 4 in charge of issuing a teacher's license in the educational affairs division, and that the above Kim Dong-dong, for the purpose of exercising his teacher's license at the above educational affairs division on March 1, 1976, the above Kim Dong-dong's qualification certificate was 7232 in the column of the number of the teacher's license among the paper of the above educational affairs division; Defendant 3 in the name column; and on August 28, 1946, the date of birth, clearly stated that he was a non-official test in the second grade teacher's music division of the secondary education division; after misappropriation-do's official seal affixed to the Superintendent of the Office of Education division division division; and submitted the above Kim Dong-dong's certificate to the above defendant 30.

However, examining evidence related to the above fact-finding by comparing it with the records and records, the defendant used the same as the above fact-finding certificate with the same teacher's qualification certificate as the above fact-finding since the prosecutor's office offered it consistent until the court below's original decision, but there was no conspiracy to forge it, and it was about 50,00 won for the above non-indicted 4's above non-indicted 4's above non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1'

Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is with merit only for the preparation of a false official document and the crime of uttering. However, since the above facts are imposed on the same person as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the judgment of Defendant 3, the entire judgment of the court below against the same person is reversed, and the appeal against Defendant 3 is well-grounded, and the case is also remanded to the Daegu High Court. The appeal against Defendant 5, Man-gu, 4, and 6 is without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The 90 days out of the detention days after the filing of the appeal by Defendant 4 shall be included in the principal punishment against the same person in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)