The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of abandonment of duties is not established in all cases where a public official neglects his/her abstract duty by Acts and subordinate statutes, rules, etc., but is established only in cases where there is a specific risk of undermining the function of the State, causing damage to the people, and the degree of illegal and responsible criticism is high for infringement of legal interests. Thus, the establishment of abandonment of duties does not constitute the crime of abandonment of duties on the sole basis of the fact that where a public official performs his/her duties with the intent of performing his/her duties in any form, the contents of his/her duties are deemed illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1390, Jul. 12, 2007; 2006Do1390, Jun. 12, 2007). The lower court does not establish a crime of abandonment of duties even where a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties due to his/her neglect, neglect, or neglect his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do675, Aug. 29, 1997).

It is insufficient to recognize it.

On the other hand, not guilty of the facts charged of this case was pronounced.

The judgment below

Even in light of the above legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of abandonment of duties, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

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