The case which recognized that a customs officer's act of abandoning his duties constitutes a crime of abandoning his duties.

A public official belonging to the customs surveillance division who stays in an ocean-going line while staying in the port where he/she remains and has been ordered to monitor, prevent, etc. smuggling but his/her body is difficult due to the reduction of the body, and who returned to the house is to waive his/her duty unless there is a justifiable reason not to waive his/her duty.

Article 122 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do96 Decided March 15, 1966

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 70No107 delivered on May 28, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

It examines the grounds for appeal of difficulties in using acting chief prosecutor of the Daegu High Prosecutor's Office.

From August 24, 1969:00 to 09:00 the following day from August 24, 1969 to August 24, 24, 1969, the court below found that the defendant, who was a public official belonging to Busan Customs office, abandoned the above boarding duty and abandoned his duty as a self-surging, even if the defendant renounced his duty, he could be deemed to have known that there was a specific criminal act in the establishment of the crime of abandonment of duty, and that there was no subjective evidence to recognize that there was an omission of duty, and that there was no other specific act of omission of duty. Accordingly, the court below found the defendant's act of omission of duty in the above-mentioned list to have been committed for the reason that there was no other subjective act of omission of duty in the above-mentioned list.

However, Article 122 of the Criminal Act provides that when a public official abandons his duties without any justifiable reason, it does not mean all the cases where the public official neglects his abstract loyalty by law, internal rules or instructions, or intelligence, and it is likely to impair the function of the State and cause damage to the people (see Supreme Court Decision 65Do98, Mar. 15, 196). In this case, the defendant does not have any influence on the defendant's failure to waive his duties for a specific period of time on the grounds that the court below did not have any abstract influence on the defendant's failure to waive his duties for the reason that he did not waive his duties for the reason that he did not have any abstract influence on the part of the defendant, such as the defendant's failure to leave his duties without permission or his scambling motive (see Supreme Court Decision 65Do98, Aug. 24, 1969).

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon