If a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties due to neglect, etc. or fails to perform such duties, the nature of the crime of abandonment.

The term "where a public official, under Article 122 of the Criminal Act, abandons his/her duties without justifiable reasons" means a case where he/she fails to perform his/her duties without justifiable reasons, such as food, neglect or renunciation of duties. Therefore, if a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties due to neglect, neglect, etc. or fails to perform his/her duties formally or formally, the crime of abandonment of duties is not established.

Article 122 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 355, Dec. 13, 1983) (Law No. 1984, Dec. 13, 1983) and 83Do3260, Mar. 27, 1984 (Gong1984,852)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 93No876 delivered on November 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, since the public official's failure to faithfully perform his duties due to his neglect, etc., or failure to perform his duties formally or formally due to his failure to perform his duties, it does not constitute a crime of abandonment of duties. The evidence which the court of first instance has used as evidence for conviction does not constitute evidence to recognize that the defendant has failed to perform his duties faithfully. Furthermore, without reporting the fact to the superior with the awareness that the defendant was guilty of his crime of gambling, the court of first instance with the awareness that 1, 2, and 3 of the co-defendants of the first instance court did not perform his duties in order to avoid the crime of gambling, and without reporting the fact to the superior, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was not guilty of gambling, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty as a legitimate judgment as to the facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

This paper ultimately criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, and thus cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)