In a case where the defendant's address is falsely entered in a civil suit and the documents of the lawsuit are served with a false address, the nature of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means (negative)

In filing a civil suit, the fact that the defendant's address is falsely stated and the court official served a writ of summons, etc. with a false address cannot be said to have interfered with the official's specific and realistic execution of official duties. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means cannot be deemed to be established.

Article 137 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No4019 delivered on January 11, 1996

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the court below's determination that maintained the evidence set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the defendant forged the sales contract, etc. of this case and exercised it, did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as contrary to the empirical rule as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or acknowledging facts without evidence, by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The fact that the defendant's address is falsely stated in a civil suit and the court official served a writ of summons, etc. on a false address does not necessarily lead to the interference with the official's specific and realistic execution of official duties. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means cannot be deemed to be established (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do284 delivered on September 13, 197).

Therefore, as to the facts that the defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased Ynam's heir, such as the non-indicted sewage, and entered the defendants' address falsely, and that the defendant forged the column for receipt of the writ of summons on the date of pleading delivered in front of sewage, etc. in his/her capacity and exercised it in such manner as stated in its reasoning, the court that believed that the service was lawful by forging and using it, which made the defendant win the defendant's judgment in favor of the defendant by means of a constructive confession, the defendant's act of having the other party's address falsely entered the other party's address and delivered the documents to his/her address constitutes an infringement on the propriety of the service, but thereby obstructing the service or trial itself, the court of first instance which acquitted him/her of the charges of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means of this case was affirmed for the same reason as stated in the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant purchased the real estate of this case from the above Banam on December 15, 1980, on the ground that the defendant did not purchase the real estate of this case, the fraudulent act of this case, the false entry of the original copy of a notarial deed, and the facts charged for the exercise thereof, which are premised on the fact that the defendant did not purchase the real estate of this case, were not proven a crime, and the above fact finding and judgment of the court below are reasonable, and there is no error of law

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)