If the details of performance of duties are false, the nature of the crime of abandonment of duties

When a public official, under Article 122 of the Criminal Code, abandons his duties without any justifiable reason, refers to a case where he fails to perform his duties without any justifiable reason, such as food, neglect or renunciation in connection with his duties. Therefore, in case where a public official fails to perform his duties faithfully due to neglect, neglect, etc., or where he returns to a person who fails to perform his duties faithfully due to his failure to perform his duties formally or negligently, the crime of abandonment of duties shall not

Article 122 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do984 delivered on March 15, 1966, 69Do932 delivered on August 19, 1969, and 77Do2952 delivered on November 22, 197, and 81Do861 delivered on March 23, 1982

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 81No1623 delivered on July 23, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal against Defendant 1 in light of the record, the building of this case was constructed as a contract owner to Defendant 1, and the decision of the court of first instance that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that Co-Defendant 2 was in charge of construction supervision, and that there was no evidence to prove that Defendant was negligent in the collapse of the building, the decision of the court of first instance is justifiable, and it cannot be found that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to co-principals of criminal negligence

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

In a case where a public official prescribed in Article 122 of the Criminal Act abandons his duties without any justifiable reason, such as a critical neglect or renunciation of his duties, means a case where a public official fails to perform his duties without any justifiable reason. Thus, in a case where a public official fails to perform his duties faithfully due to neglect, neglect, etc., or where a public official fails to perform his duties faithfully due to failure to perform his duties formally or in negligence, the crime of abandonment of his duties is not established (see Supreme Court Decisions 65Do984 delivered on March 15, 1966; 69Do932 delivered on August 19, 196; 77Do2952 delivered on November 22, 197; 81Do861 delivered on March 23, 1982).

The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence, recognizes that the defendant submitted an interim inspection report to Co-Defendant 2, who is the supervisor of the court below, stating that "it is possible to continue construction because the file was constructed as designed without any violation" after inquiring the supervisor of the court below about the contents of the interim inspection, even if it is acknowledged that the above fact finding is justified and the facts are the same as above, even if the defendant did not ask the supervisor of the construction supervisor of the construction work to the part of the contractor like the theory of lawsuit, the contents of the execution of his duties are defective and the contents of the interim inspection do not constitute a case where the execution of duties is not performed, and the contents of the interim inspection report cannot be seen as false, and it cannot be viewed as a case where the contents of the execution of duties are incomplete and the contents of the interim inspection report are false. Therefore, the court below's decision to the purport that the above fact finding is not justified.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)