(a) Definition of a special relationship among the concurrence with the law;

B. Whether Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies is related to Article 20 and Article 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act (negative)

A. Special relationship, which is a form of a legal concurrence agreement, is a case where the elements of a special law must be satisfied other elements than all other elements of a special law, and the act which satisfies the requirements of a special law in a special law shall not meet the requirements of a special law, on the contrary that the act meets the requirements of a general law.

B. According to Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act, “where a certified public accountant intentionally conceals truth or makes a false report while performing his/her duties, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with or without labor for not more than three years or suspension of qualifications for not more than five years.” Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies provides, “Where a person provided for in Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act, an auditor or a certified public accountant belonging to him/her, or a person related to the audit fails to submit an audit report within a prescribed period, or where a certified public accountant fails to enter or makes a false statement in an audit report, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with or without labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” Of them, even if Article 20 and Article 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act separately removes only “the act of making a false statement in an audit report” and Article 20(1)20(2)2)2 of the Act on External Audit of a Stock Companies Act are limited to a certified public accountant.

(b) Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 92Do2581 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993, 498)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jong-woo et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No5249 delivered on January 15, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

On the first ground for appeal

According to the evidence in the first instance judgment of the court below, all of the facts constituting the crime of this case against the defendants can be recognized, so there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment below.

On the second ground for appeal

An act that satisfies the requirements of a special law in a special law shall not meet the requirements of a special law, on the contrary, while an act that satisfies the requirements of a general law in a special law shall not meet the requirements of a special law in a case where a certain elements of a special law include all other elements of a special law and shall meet the requirements of a special law.

However, according to Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act, “where a certified public accountant intentionally conceals truth or makes a false report in performing his/her duties, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with or without labor for not more than three years, or suspension of qualifications for not more than five years.” Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies provides that “Where a person prescribed in Article 635(1) of the Commercial Act, an auditor, or a certified public accountant belonging to him/her, or a person related to the audit fails to submit an audit report within a prescribed period, or fails to enter or make a false statement in an audit report, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with or without labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.” From among them, even if Article 20 and Article 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act separately excludes only “an act of making a false report” and “an act of making a false statement in an audit report,” it cannot be deemed that the elements of such act are identical to Article 20(2)2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)