Whether the crime of violation of Article 13 (2) 1 of the Passport Act and the crime of Article 228 (2) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

The crimes of violation of Article 13 (2) 1 of the Passport Act and the crimes of Article 228 (2) of the Criminal Act shall be deemed as the ordinary concurrent crimes as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Article 13(2) of the Passport Act, Article 228 of the Criminal Act, Article 40 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three attorneys Lee Sung-soo

Busan District Court Decision 70No1386 delivered on August 17, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

Judgment on the second ground

The court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant 1 applied for issuance of a passport to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on November 6, 1967, based on its stated evidence that Defendant 1 submitted a certified copy of Defendant 1’s family register, which is the defendant’s paper, and submitted a certified copy of Defendant 1’s family register, which is the above type of the defendant’s paper, and reported the same person’s name in spite of the former type of personality different from that of the above defendant’s paper. Thus, even if the court below examined the relation of the evidence cooking which was conducted by the court below for the above recognition, it cannot be viewed that there was a ground for illegality in the theory

Judgment on the third ground

In light of the records, there is no evidence that the execution theory was illegal execution, such as the theory of lawsuit execution, and there is no ground for illegality of the theory of lawsuit to determine that the act of entering the inspection constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence on the premise that the building was executed on the premise that the building was executed on the part of the party, and there is no evidence that the defendant et al. entered the inspection after the execution of the name of the party, and there is no evidence that the act of entering the inspection was a legitimate act or a self-help act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no ground for illegality in violation of the legal principles as to the limit of the effect of the judgment, the limit of the duty of patience on compulsory execution, and the status of

Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Although the crime of violation of Article 13 (2) 1 of the Passport Act and the crime of Article 228 (2) of the Criminal Act should be deemed to be a commercial concurrent crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, the court below erred in applying the law. However, in addition to the above two crimes, since the defendant committed a crime of uttering of the passport entered in the above two crimes and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, in applying the law, the above two crimes are deemed to be a commercial concurrent crime, and the above two crimes are deemed to be a commercial concurrent crime, and the above two crimes shall not be deemed to be a single concurrent crime. Thus, the error of applying the law of the court below does not constitute a case of affecting the judgment, and the above judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have affected the judgment, and the above two crimes shall be considered to be a single concurrent crime, and

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)