The case is that only the crime of preparation of a false public document, which is a crime of commission, is established, and the crime of abandonment of duty, which is a crime of omission, is not established.

When a public official completes the commencement and completion inspection of a new building and prepares related documents, if he/she falsely prepares a false statement of intent to conceal any violation of the terms and conditions of permission, only the crime of uttering, which is the crime of commission, shall be established, and the crime of abandonment of duty, which is the crime of omission,

Article 227 of the Criminal Act, Article 229 of the Criminal Act, Article 122 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No524 delivered on January 20, 1972

All of the Prosecutor’s appeals and Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the defendant et al. completed the commencement and completion inspection for each new building of both the non-indicted 1 and 2 and completed the relevant documents, and subsequently prepares false statements, etc. for the purpose of hiding the facts in violation of the conditions of permission, the court below held that in such a case, only the crime of uttering, which is the crime of commission, is established, and the crime of abandonment of duty, is not established. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of abandonment of duty, and it cannot be deemed that there is no error in the application of the statutes, and it is nothing more than the argument of the original judgment with regard to the crime of abandonment of duty and the crime of abandonment of duty, and there is no reason to believe that the original judgment did not have any evidence to view that the defendant et al. performed the duty as a public official, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below did not err by misapprehending the conditions of the above interpretation and the facts that the defendant et al. violated the conditions of the construction permit.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are also examined.

In light of the records and records, the defendants' assertion that the defendants' false official document was written can be sufficiently recognized if the original judgment was prepared and reviewed. Thus, the defendants' duty of misunderstanding is unfair, and the defendants' duty of misunderstanding is confirmed as to whether the building itself was started and completed according to the permission, and the defendants' duty of misunderstanding is confirmed as to whether the building was constructed in violation of the conditions of permission at the time of permission, even though the building was constructed in violation of the conditions of permission at the time when permission was granted, on the ground that the duty of misunderstanding was not assigned to order after investigating the situation of the neighboring site or the announcement rate, etc., and there is no reason to argue that the original judgment is opposed to the fact that the original judgment was prepared and submitted to the commercial person, and there is no reason to argue that the original judgment is erroneous, erroneous, or erroneous, or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of preparation of false official document as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all of the Prosecutor’s appeals and Defendants’ respective appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)