[1] Whether the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established in a case where the Korean consular official stationed in the Republic of Korea applies for visa issuance with false data attached to the Korean consular official stationed in the foreign country, and the person in charge of such application sufficiently examines the grounds for application and supporting materials are not found

[2] The case holding that the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established in a case where a person who had the power of compulsory departure due to a criminal act submits a false defense unit and an application for foreigner registration to the Korean consular official stationed in a foreign country and received a visa and foreigner registration certificate

[1] As for the visa issuance services of Korean consulates stationed in the Republic of Korea in the foreign country, the qualification requirements, etc. shall be examined and determined on the premise that the reasons stated in the application may not be inconsistent with the facts in determining whether to accept the application, and if the applicant accepts the false reasons for application or supporting materials submitted by the applicant without sufficiently verifying the facts, this constitutes a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, which is due to insufficient examination of the worker in charge, and does not constitute a crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means. However, in a case where the applicant submits a false assertion to the worker in charge, accompanied by false supporting materials corresponding thereto, the person in charge of the decision on whether to accept the application sufficiently examines the existence of the requirements as prescribed by the relevant provisions, but fails to discover the grounds for application and supporting materials, which are not sufficient examination by the worker in charge, and thereby constitutes a crime of obstruction of official duties by deceptive means.

[2] The case holding that the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established in a case where a person who had a power of compulsory departure due to a criminal act submits a false defense unit and an application for foreigner registration to the Korean consular official stationed in a foreign country and receives a visa and a foreigner registration certificate

[1] Article 137 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 137 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2131 Decided September 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2464) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7927 Decided March 26, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 762)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-ho

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No3690 Decided December 4, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. 75 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As for the issuance of visa by the Korean consular officials stationed in the Republic of Korea in the foreign country, the qualification requirements, etc. shall be examined and determined on the premise that the reasons stated in the application may not be inconsistent with the facts in determining whether to accept the application, and if the person in charge of the affairs submitted by the applicant without sufficiently verifying the facts, he/she accepted the false reasons for the application or false explanatory materials that were submitted by the applicant, this constitutes a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means. However, in cases where the applicant submitted a false assertion to the person in charge of the affairs with false explanatory materials, and the applicant submitted such false explanatory materials corresponding thereto, the person in charge of the affairs who determined whether to accept the application has sufficiently examined the existence of the requirements as prescribed by the relevant provisions, but failed to discover the reasons for the application and the false explanatory materials, which led to the extent that the application will be accepted by fraudulent means, not by the person in charge of the affairs, and thus, the crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3736, Sep. 10, 2004).

Examining the judgment of the court below on the premise of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the evidence legitimately employed by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to the suspension of execution of imprisonment for the crime of forging official documents on October 200 and on May 7, 2004. The defendant was forced to leave the country on May 28, 2004, and the name of the Chinese government office was changed from Bracker's office through Bracker's name without going through normal procedures at the Chinese market (OOO, Kim, English, omitted), and date of birth to "OOO,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O, andO," submitted to the Korean consul of the Republic of Korea on May 20, 200, and submitted to the KOOOO, who was issued a visa under the name of 10 days after entering the Republic of Korea on May 21, 200, and submitted to the Seoul Immigration Office for the examination that the defendant could not be found to have been issued under the above 10th consular judgment.

Therefore, this decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to obstruction of performance of justice by fraudulent means, as alleged in the

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than ten years is imposed, the grounds for deeming the amount of punishment unreasonable are not legitimate grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and a part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)