Whether a report of birth under the Family Register Act is made by a person who has already registered as a resident (negative)

Article 13-2 (1) of the Resident Registration Act means that, in a case where the reported matters under the Family Register Act and the reported matters under the Resident Registration Act are the same, the inconvenience of the reported matters under the Resident Registration Act is reduced, and the administrative agencies in charge of the family register and the resident registration register intend to coincide with the reported matters under the Resident Registration Act by the notification procedure. This means that in a case where a report is made under the Family Register Act, it may not be doublely reported under the Resident Registration Act. It is clear that a report under the Family Register Act may not be deemed to be the same as a report under the Resident Registration Act, or a double reported under Article 10 (2) of the Resident Registration Act may not be deemed to be a double reported under the Resident Registration Act even if a person already registered as a resident has reported a report under the Family Register Act.

Articles 10(1) and (2), and 13-2(1) of the Resident Registration Act

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005No659 decided May 12, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

이 사건 공소사실의 요지는 피고인이 2003. 10. 1.경 원주시 부론면 법천리 소재 부론면사무소에서, 사실은 피고인이 이미 ‘ (이름 생략)’라는 이름으로 서울 고덕동 사무소에 출생신고를 하였음에도 그러한 사실을 숨긴 채 출생신고서에 성명을 ‘ (이름 생략)’, 출생일시를 ‘1977. 7. 7. 07:37’, 출생장소를 ‘미국 뉴욕시 퀸스트리트 33번지’로 허위로 기재하여 피고인이 ‘ (이름 생략)’ 본인임을 모르는 부론면사무소 주민등록담당 공무원인 공소외 1에게 출생신고를 함으로써 거주지를 관할하는 시장·군수 또는 구청장에게 성명 등의 사항을 이중으로 신고하였다는 것인바, 원심은 위 공소사실에 대하여 제1심판결이 채택한 증거를 인용하여 유죄로 인정하였다.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

Article 10 (1) of the Resident Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "a resident imposes a duty to report matters falling under any of the following subparagraphs on his/her name, gender, and date of birth, etc. on the head of Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over his/her place of residence, and Article 10 (2) of the Act provides that "no person shall make a double report pursuant to paragraph (1)", and Article 13-2 of the Act provides that "where the matters to be reported under this Act are the same as those to be reported under the Family Register Act, a report pursuant to this Act shall be substituted by a report pursuant to the Family Register Act," and Article 13-2 (1) of the Act provides that "Where the matters to be reported under the Family Register Act are the same as those reported under the Resident Registration Act, an administrative agency in charge of the family register shall not make a double report on the same matters as those reported under the Resident Registration Act, and Article 13-2 (1) of the Act does not make a report pursuant to the Resident Registration Act.

Therefore, even if the defendant reported the birth of this case under the Family Register Act (However, according to the record, the report of the birth of this case seems to have been submitted by the mother non-indicted 2 accompanied by the defendant to Non-indicted 2), it cannot be viewed as a double report under the Resident Registration Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant who already registered as a resident in accordance with the Family Register Act to be guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's report of birth under the Family Register Act constitutes a case of double report under Article 10 (2) of the Resident Registration Act. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of reporting under the Resident Registration Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)