In the event that the statement which was kept in custody without reporting it to the officer, is discarded in the suspension box without being bound to the investigation records, the nature of the crime of invalidation of public documents shall be committed.

The object of the crime of invalidation of public documents is so long as it is a document used by a public office, it shall not be asked whether it has been received through a regular procedure or whether it takes effect after being completed. As such, the statement of this case prepared by the defendant is not a document bound to an investigation record, nor a document used by a public office under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, unless it is a document bound to an investigation record or completed document. Thus, the written statement prepared by the defendant by receiving a statement from the person without the signature of the person who made the statement is kept without bound to the investigation record, and the period of leaving it in a suspended copy constitutes the so-called crime of invalidation of public documents.

Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do324 delivered on March 30, 1971, 80Do1127 delivered on October 27, 1980, 81Do1830 Delivered on August 25, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Maximum Attorney Park Jae-in

Busan District Court Decision 81No2667 delivered on January 25, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The First Ground for Appeal

The object of the crime of invalidation of public documents is so long as it is a document used by a public office (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Do262 delivered on August 26, 1961, Supreme Court Decision 71Do324 delivered on March 30, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 80Do127 delivered on October 27, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 81Do1830 delivered on August 25, 1981), so long as it is a document used by a public office, it shall not be asked whether the document was received after the procedure was completed or completed (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Do262 delivered on August 26, 1961, Supreme Court Decision 71Do324 delivered on March 30, 197, Supreme Court Decision 81Do1830 delivered on August 25, 198). Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement is not a document used by a public office under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act that was bound by the first instance decision.

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the criminal facts of the abandonment of duties in the judgment of the court of first instance can be legitimately recognized. The records do not recognize the violation of the rules of evidence or the misconception of facts due to the incomplete hearing, even after examining the process of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding, and the defendant's act legally decided by the court of first instance cannot be viewed as a case where the duty of abstract loyalty due to statutes, internal rules, instructions, or intelligence is neglected or an unfair result is caused due to reasons such as the separation, arrival, and the legal lot, etc., and therefore there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of abandonment of duties.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)