The so-called "when a public official abandons his/her duties without good cause" under Article 122 of the Criminal Code;

time when a public official abandons his duties means a case where the public official's failure to perform his duties abstractly by statute, rule, instruction, or intelligence does not lead to any case, but it is likely to impair the function of the State and cause damage to the people, such as the deprivation of duty without permission from the workplace or the renunciation of duty, etc.

Article 122 of the Criminal Act

Prosecutor

Defendant 1 and three others

Gwangju District Court Decision 65No305 decided September 24, 1965

All appeals are dismissed.

1. First, we examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on Defendant 2, 3, 1, and 4.

The summary of the theory is that: (a) entry in the indictment (5) of the above Defendants 2 on the charge concerning the abandonment of duties of the above Defendants, namely, (3) of the indictment against Defendant 3; (b) the part concerning abandonment of duties of Defendant 1 and 4 in the indictment against Defendant 3 is a public official whose duties are to promote the protection of forests and crack down on crimes; (c) it is necessary to actively detect the crimes related to forestry products and accurately grasp the actual conditions of the manufacturers of forestry products by reducing the unique characteristics of the duties, and to prevent the omission of duties in the above facts charged; and (d) it is evident that the above Defendants failed to faithfully perform their loyalty duties in the performance of their duties, and thus, (e) it is difficult for each public official to find out that there is no possibility that the above Defendants were not guilty of the above facts charged without permission, and (e) it is difficult for each public official to find out that there is no possibility that the Defendants did not have any duty of care or omission of his duties, as stated in the indictment to the above Defendants 2 and 3 of the Criminal Act.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal on the crime of abandonment of duties as stated in (1)-1 of the facts constituting an offense committed by the original judgment by the defense counsel Kim Jong-ok on the defendant 2.

The gist of the theory is that the defendant's performance of duties stated in the facts charged in relation to the abandonment of duties was not simply different in accordance with the previous precedent and there was no awareness that he neglected to perform his duties, and even if there was no evidence to prove the criminal intent regarding the abandonment of duties in the record, the original judgment was found guilty. However, there is no reason to suspect that there was a mistake in the establishment of the facts charged in relation to the abandonment of duties in the original judgment, considering the record and the contents of each litigation materials admitted by the original judgment as evidence, even if examining the record and examining the contents of each litigation materials admitted by the original judgment, and there is no reason to suspect that there was a mistake in the establishment of

3. We examine the grounds of appeal as to each of the crimes committed by Defendant 3, which were described in (2) (1), (2) and (4) of the criminal facts committed by Defendant 3.

The summary of the theory is that the defendant did not have any qualification or obligation to perform the duties stated on the facts of the crime, since it was merely a so-called 5th class written notification working in the (title omitted) military construction and the protection division, the defendant did not have any qualification or obligation to perform the duties stated on the guidelines for the implementation of the forest protection project in Jeonnam-do, 1963. Thus, even if the commercial company issued an order to perform its duties, the order itself cannot be deemed to have been unlawful even if the order was issued by the commercial company. However, without examining the above overlapping contents, the judgment was illegal to conclude that the defendant committed the crime as stated in its reasoning in the judgment without holding a deliberation on the contents of the above overlapping, and it was erroneous to conclude that the defendant committed the crime in the course of performing his duties by the commercial person's name. As the judgment was lawful, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the order to perform the duties of the public official of Grade IV or higher in the number of public officials in the forest (military) through Grade V and the order to perform the duties of the commercial person.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)