In case where the party concerned makes a false assertion or submits false evidence at the time of filing an application for provisional disposition, whether the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established (negative)

The duty of the court is to clarify the truth despite the party's false assertion and submission of evidence. Thus, even if the party concerned made a false assertion or presented false evidence at the time of filing an application for provisional disposition, it cannot be deemed that the court interfered with the execution of official duties by fraudulent means, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established.

Article 137 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011No1429 decided November 29, 2011

All appeals are dismissed.

The duty of the court is to clarify the truth despite the party's false assertion and submission of evidence. Thus, even if the party made a false assertion or submitted false evidence at the time of filing an application for provisional disposition, it cannot be deemed that the execution of official duties by fraudulent means has been interfered with the court's specific and realistic execution of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do312 delivered on October 11, 1996).

In this case where the defendants filed an application for provisional disposition on corporeal movables with false sales contract and receipts attached thereto and received the decision of provisional disposition from the court, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which held that the crime of obstruction of execution of official duties by fraudulent means is not established just on the ground that the defendants issued a false provisional disposition order due to fraudulent acts by the court, although it may be deemed that the propriety of the court's decision of provisional disposition was infringed due to such acts as stated in the facts charged by the defendants, the specific and realistic execution of official duties cannot be said to have been hindered. Such judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law as to

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

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)