2018Do11121 A. Preparation of false public documents

(b) Exercising false official documents;

C. Abuse of official authority and obstruction

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

C. Law Firm

Attorney D, E, F, G

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018No694 Decided July 5, 2018

October 25, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Each part on abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights against H and I

The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charges of abusing official authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights in this part of this part, on the ground that the Defendant, as an investigator of the prosecution assistant position, had H and I attend the prosecutor’s office, and had H and I submit relevant materials or a statement contrary to the truth, on the pretext that he/she did not report the fact that he/she had an investigator of the prosecution assistant position, and had H and I do not have an obligation to do so.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements of the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights, the principle of court-oriented trials

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. On December 31, 2014 and January 13, 2015, the part on the preparation of each false official document and the part on the uttering of each false official document. For the following reasons, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of each of the charges on the preparation of each false official document and the display of each falsified official document, and found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges charged on the following grounds.

(1) The content of this case’s written replys to the investigative interview and the investigative cooperation and the confirmation or verification of the necessity of an investigative meeting or investigative data related to a case under investigation, and it cannot be deemed that it is merely a mere expression of intent to request an investigative meeting or investigative data. (2) The Defendant drafted a false official document and sent each official document to the public with the approval of the public prosecutor who knows the fact, under the presumption that the investigative meeting or investigative data requested in each of the above official documents are related to a case under investigation, and thus, are likely to be related to the case under investigation.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the preparation of false documents

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Cho Jae-chul et al.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee