Whether a crime of violation of Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and a crime of violation of Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act constitutes separate elements of each independent element (affirmative)

Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act regulating “the act of concealing truth or making a false report” in the performance of duties by a certified public accountant, and Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies regulating “the act of failing to enter or making a false statement in an audit report,” and Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, which prescribes “the act of failing to enter or making a false statement in an audit report,” are different in terms of the legislative purpose, provisions, subject matter, protected legal interest and interest of each Act. Thus, the above penal provisions under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies do not regard the above penal provisions as special provisions

Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-sung

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No4685 delivered on September 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Articles 20 and 12(2) of the Certified Public Accountant Act regulating "the act of hiding truth or making a false report" in the performance of duties by a certified public accountant, and Article 20(1)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies regulating "the act of failing to enter or making a false statement in an audit report" is different from the legislative purpose, provisions, subject matter, legal interest, etc. of each Act. Thus, it is reasonable to view each of the above penal provisions under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies as separate constituent elements, not as special provisions for the above penal provisions under the Certified Public Accountant Act.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below which rejected the argument that the above punishment law under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies is a special law on punishment under the Certified Public Accountant Act, and that the defendant's act in the judgment of the court below should be punished only for a violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies shall be justified, and there is no error in the application of the law as pointed out in the theory.

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