Whether the report of divorce by consultation is a document submitted to the court under Article 2 (1) of the Judicial Documents Act

In light of the relevant provisions such as Article 79-2 of the Family Register Act, Articles 5 (4) and 7 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the Supreme Court's established rules, etc. on the guidelines for dealing with family affairs, a report of divorce by agreement constitutes documents to be submitted to a court under Article 2 (1) of the Act on Private and Judicial Affairs, and thus, it shall not be construed as documents related to the family register under Article 2 of the Act on Private and Judicial Affairs, Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, so that a report of divorce

Article 2 of the Judicial Act, Article 79-2 of the Family Register Act, Article 5 and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Family Register Act

Defendant

Defendant

Ulsan District Court of the first instance (85 high-class912) Busan District Court (85 high-class912)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The first issue among the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this point, even though the defendant did not prepare an application for confirmation of intention of divorce during the original adjudication and the non-indicted et al. prepared it. The second issue is that the defendant misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, and the second issue is that the defendant prepared a divorce report at the time of original adjudication, but even if the statement is attached to the application for confirmation of intention of divorce and submitted it to the court, it is submitted and processed with the confirmation by the court, and it is a report document related to the family register submitted to the administrative agency under Article 2 of the Administrative Documents Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 2, Article 1, 2, 2, 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Procedure Act, and the preparation of the above divorce report is a legitimate act belonging to the unique duties of the administrative secretary such as the defendant, and thus, the defendant's preparation of a divorce report at the time of original adjudication does not violate the judicial law.

First of all, if the evidence stated by the court below is examined by the record as to the assertion of mistake of fact, it cannot be found that the above crime of the defendant, which the court below decided, can be recognized and there is no error of law in the preparation of evidence and fact-finding. Next, according to Article 79-2 of the Family Register Act, Article 5 (4) and Article 7 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc., the divorce report is submitted to the court under Article 2 (1) of the Judicial Documents Act as a document submitted to the court under Article 2 (1) of the Act, such as the administrative document of the defendant's argument, and it is not interpreted as a report document related to the family register submitted to the court under Article 2 (1) of the Act, so even if the defendant is not a judicial assistant, it is against Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) of the Judicial Documents Act, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Gyeong-hee