Defendant

Defendant

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

Attorney Lee Hong-soo (Korean)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 39 decided August 10, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

At the time of the report of birth at the office of the father-si, the Defendant provided sufficient consultation to the public official in charge at the time of the report of birth, such as informing the public official in charge of the report of birth in the name of "(name omitted)", and then reported the birth of this case according to the direction of the public official in charge. Thus, the Defendant did not have any awareness of the intention to double report of name, etc. or the violation of the Resident Registration Act, despite the absence of awareness of illegality, the lower court committed an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, in particular, the testimony by Non-Indicted 1 of the witness of the court below and the court below, the defendant had already known that his mother had reported the birth of the defendant on January 28, 1992, but he could not report the birth due to the special circumstances in his house, and paid the fine for negligence to the public official in charge of the office of the court below and the report of the birth of this case was recognized. Thus, the defendant's intention to report the double name, etc. can be fully recognized.

In addition, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." It does not mean a simple legal site, but it means that a defendant shall not be punishable if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding, recognizing that his act constitutes a general crime but is not an act permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances, and recognizing that he does not constitute a crime. According to the records, even though the defendant was consulted at the counseling office or door-to-door Eup office prior to his birth report of this case at the home office at the home office at the home-to-si office at the home-si office at the home-to-si office at the home-si, the defendant's crime does not constitute "when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding" as referred

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on December 2001 by a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; (b) there was no previous conviction; and (c) the Defendant believed that his name should be changed in order to improve his own health that is not good.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment shall be rendered again after

The gist of the facts charged and the evidence against the defendant recognized by this court is as follows, except for the addition of “non-indicted 1’s legal statement to the witness of the trial” to the summary of the evidence of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 21(2)1, Article 10(2) and (1) of the Resident Registration Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2)(50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 700,000 won, fine for negligence, in consideration of these circumstances in the ground of reversal)

Judges Lee Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)

The presiding judge is unable to affix his/her signature and seal by an immigration soldier;