[1] Whether there is a need for awareness of the falsity of the appraisal content in the crime of false appraisal (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the crime of false appraisal is established where an appraiser partially entrusted the appraisal to another person and submitted the appraisal result to the court in the name of the appraiser

[3] The number and timing of the crime of false expert testimony

[1] Since the crime of false appraisal is an intentional crime, even though the content of appraisal is contrary to objective facts, it cannot be punished as a crime of false appraisal because there is no false perception unless it is contrary to the subjective judgment of an appraiser.

[2] The case affirming the establishment of a crime of false appraisal on the ground that the appraiser had awareness of falsity in light of all circumstances, although the appraiser's awareness of falsity was given to the appraiser, in case where the appraiser partially entrusted the appraisal to another person and submitted the appraisal result to the court in the name of the appraiser, the other person is merely an assistant of the appraiser, and the appraisal opinion shows his opinion and judgment

[3] In a case where an appraiser submits a false report on the same appraisal order several times in accordance with the court's order for appraisal issued under the same oath in a single litigation case, each time when submitting a false report on appraisal report, the crime of false appraisal shall be established. However, this constitutes a single crime of false appraisal, including continuing false appraisal under a single criminal intent, which constitutes a single crime of false appraisal.

[1] Articles 13 and 154 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 13 and 154 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 37 and 154 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Jung-soo et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 9No3000 delivered on February 16, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel (the grounds of appeal by each reply of the defendant and by the defense counsel of the defendant are limited to the extent of supplement) are examined.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant, who took an appraiser's oath in Daegu District Court Decision 95 Gohap6922 on August 6, 1996, issued a second appraisal report to the above court, and confirmed the construction design and current construction conditions, and if the above parts were to be reconstructed, it shall be confirmed whether the construction design and the unconstruction portion were constructed differently from the construction design, and if the above parts were to be reconstructed, it shall be appraised in writing and reported the result in the appraisal. The defendant shall submit the second appraisal report to the above court on August 6, 1996. The defendant shall be installed between the main office and the second and third floors of each household on the surface of the design drawing, and the appraisal agency shall not have any error in the law of removal of the appraisal report to the 196th appraisal appraisal institution, and it shall not be connected to the 197th appraisal appraisal institution without being connected to the 190th appraisal appraisal report (the 197th appraisal report).

2. Since the crime of false appraisal is an intentional crime, even though the content of appraisal is contrary to objective facts, it cannot be punished for the crime of false appraisal without any false awareness. However, even if the defendant submitted the second or fourth appraisal report to the court, the non-indicted 2, who is an employee, requests the service of part of the appraisal in the above appraisal report to the non-indicted 3 office, which is the facility specialized company, as it is stated in the above appraisal report, the non-indicted 2 is merely an assistant of the defendant's business, and the appraisal opinion shows the defendant's opinion and judgment, so the defendant as a matter of course confirms the propriety of the appraisal result. According to the records, the non-indicted 2, who did not prepare a false appraisal report to the non-indicted 3,000, on the ground that the non-indicted 3,000's construction report to the non-indicted 2, which was installed in the first or fourth appraisal report to the effect that the non-indicted 3, who did not properly carry out an appraisal inspection, was not found to have any defect in the design part of the above.

3. In a case where an appraiser submits a false report on the same appraisal order several times under the same oath of the court, each time at the time of submitting each appraisal report, which constitutes a crime of false appraisal. However, this constitutes a crime of false appraisal, including continuing false appraisal under a single criminal intent, which is a single crime of false appraisal.

Even if the defendant submitted the fifth appraisal report to the court of the above civil case after the crime was committed and corrected in compliance with the facts, the liability for the crime of false appraisal already established shall not be affected. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of false appraisal or by inconsistency with the reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)