Whether an administrative secretary can engage in the business of preparing a statement, etc. of a criminal case (affirmative)

Since the preparation of a statement, a petition, a written agreement, etc. concerning a criminal case is prepared in relation to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office, it falls under the scope of the affairs of the judicial secretary, and the administrative secretary shall not engage in the preparation of such

Article 3 (1) of the Judicial Documents Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do1301 Decided January 13, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 86Do343 Decided June 10, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 89No430 delivered on July 20, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the preparation of a statement, a petition, a written agreement, etc. related to the affairs of the court and the public prosecutor's office is prepared, it belongs to the scope of the affairs of the judicial secretary, and the administrative secretary cannot engage in the preparation of such documents as a business.

As the judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, if the defendant is not a judicial secretary and is commissioned by many and unspecified persons including this Decree of the prosecution during the period of the judgment, or if he receives the remuneration of the judgment from the clients after preparing a statement, a petition, a written agreement, etc. of the criminal case, which is a document related to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office, or documents related to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office, it shall be in violation of

The decision of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of conviction against the defendant is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, the right to equality under Article 11 (1) of the Constitution, or the right to freedom of occupation under Article 15 of the Constitution. Thus, the argument is groundless.

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

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)