(a) The nature of the provisions of Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

(b) In cases where a public official engaged in investigation into a violation of the Forestry Act uses a false public document in violation of his/her duties, the nature of the special crime of abandonment;

A. Article 15 (Special Dggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a new type of crime, unlike the crime of abandonment of duties under Article 122 of the Criminal Act, and statutory punishment therefor.

B. In a case where a public official prepares and holds a false public document in violation of his/her duties, the illegality of the assignment of his/her duties is included in the false public document from the time of its preparation to the date of the false public document and the crime of the abandonment of duties under Article 122 of the Criminal Act is not established separately, and the crime of the abandonment of duties under Article 122 of the Criminal Act is not appropriate for the special crime of the abandonment of duties under Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is separate from the crime of the crime of the crime of the abandonment of duties under Article 122 of the Criminal Act. Thus, if a public official who is engaged in a criminal investigation committed in violation of the Forestry Act while holding office as an assistant judicial police officer concurrently performs a false public document on his/her duties to conceal the crime without taking necessary measures, the special crime of abandonment of duties under Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

Article 15 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 122 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1783 delivered on February 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the evidence employed by the court below, since it is sufficient to recognize the special duty abandonment in the judgment against the defendant, the judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the special duty abandonment such as theory of lawsuit, and therefore the argument cannot be adopted.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

Article 15 (Special Dereliction of Duties) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a public official engaged in the duties of criminal investigation is aware of a person who commits a crime prescribed by this Act and abandons his duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than one year. This is different from the crime of abandonment of duties under Article 122 of the Criminal Act, which provides for a new type of crime and statutory punishment therefor. The facts established by the judgment of the court below are that the defendant, who is a public official engaged in the criminal investigation of violation of Article 9 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, concurrently engages in the duties of judicial police officers and assistant officials of Chungcheongbuk-do as well as the crime of abandonment of duties in violation of Article 9 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is not obliged to take the above measures without any justifiable reason despite the fact that the non-indicted person committed an unlawful act, such as the preparation of a false list of members concerning his duties, and preparation of the register of 2199 and 2818 Ga.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)