Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Lee Young-chul

Attorney O Young-young et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Gohap2095 Delivered on January 13, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

174 days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of destroying evidence relating to the amusement room (trade name omitted 2) dated May 10, 2003 and the charge of neglecting duties is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts

(A) As to the destruction of evidence and abandonment of duty concerning (name omitted 1) amusement rooms in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

1) On May 10, 2003, the Defendant considered whether the seizure of the edition of the amusement room from a civil petitioner on his name was an infringement on property rights and could return the edition to Nonindicted Party 1 at the level of resolving a civil petition. In the absence of any problem, the Defendant merely returned it to Nonindicted Party 1 and did not intend to destroy evidence or abandon his duties at the time.

2) The sales of the instant entertainment room are not subject to the necessary confiscation, and it is not subject to the crime of destroying evidence or abandonment of duties, since the sales of the instant entertainment room were returned prior to the effectiveness of seizure as a voluntarily produced article.

(B) As to the destruction of evidence and abandonment of duty concerning (trade name omitted2) amusement rooms in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

The Defendant did not know in advance the fact of the crackdown on the amusement room (trade name omitted2) and did not instruct Nonindicted Party 1 to return the presses confiscated in the amusement room (trade name omitted2). Nonindicted Party 1 returned the presss confiscated to the operator of the amusement room (trade name omitted1) and returned the presss confiscated on the same day to the operator of the amusement room (trade name omitted2) in an equitable manner. As such, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of destroying evidence or abandonment of duties relating to (trade name omitted2) amusement room.

(C) As to the preparation of false official document and the uttering of false official document under Paragraph (2) of the crime of the lower judgment

The Defendant did not instruct Nonindicted Party 1 to the same content as that of the above criminal facts.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

While the Defendant took the leading role in the crime of this case, it is highly probable that all responsibility while denying the crime was exceeded to Nonindicted 1, and that Nonindicted 1 received money and valuables from the person related to this case. While Nonindicted 1, who led to the crime of this case by the direction of the Defendant, led to the crime of this case, all of the facts of the crime of this case, and in other cases, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime of this case for 10 months, and sentenced to eight months for the crime of this case, the sentence of the lower court that was sentenced to the

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the destruction of evidence and abandonment of duty concerning (name omitted 1) amusement rooms among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below

(1) The basic facts

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the following facts may be recognized.

(A) The Defendant served as the chief of (title omitted) police station from July 2002 to February 2004, and Nonindicted Party 1 served in (title omitted) police station from January 29, 2002 to early 2004.

(B) On May 9, 200, at around 14:00, Nonindicted Party 1 was under the control of Nonindicted Party 3, who belongs to the Chungcheongnamnam Provincial Police Agency’s living order room (mutual omitted 2) located in Daejeon (mutual omitted 2) and was called to transfer documents, and provided support with three police officers (name omitted), who belong to the police station guidance division (Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 5, and Nonindicted Party 6), and jointly with the said Nonindicted Party 3 and (name omitted 2) police station employees, etc., who controlled the above (mutual name omitted 2) entertainment room on suspicion of violating the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act, and altered the regulations on the said (mutual name omitted 2) entertainment room on suspicion of violation of the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act, and on the ground of seizure of KRW 95,19,000,000,000 to leave the scene, Nonindicted Party 1’s business share was under the control of Nonindicted Party 1’s entertainment site and arranged it to another on the spot.

(C) During the field arrangement at (trade name omitted2), Nonindicted Party 1 was called from the above Nonindicted 3 to the (trade name omitted 1) entertainment room (trade name omitted 7 operation) located in the same Dong (name omitted 1) entertainment room (trade name omitted 7 operation), and subsequently, he moved to the said (trade name omitted 1) entertainment room and controlled it jointly with Nonindicted 3, etc., and the altered “Yang Jang 2” entertainment room was seized at KRW 81,25.6 million, and returned to the (name omitted) police station office around the retirement hours.

(D) After having returned to the office, Nonindicted Party 1 summoned the owner of the above (trade name omitted 1) entertainment room and (trade name omitted 2) entertainment room and the owner of the entertainment room from around 20:00 on the same day for the preparation of the report of seizure, but Nonindicted Party 1 returned to the office without preparing a seizure report and a provisional return application for the said alteration, and only the gift certificates seized at (trade name omitted 2) entertainment room and a seizure report for the said alteration were prepared.

(E) On May 10, 2005, Nonindicted Party 1 summoned the owners of Samsung and Samsung (trade name omitted 2) amusement rooms from the crime prevention guidance office of the above police station to the extent that there is no other employee at the above police station’s office, and returned the altered edition seized as seen above.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) At an investigative agency and the lower court, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that: (a) on May 9, 2003, the personnel of the life guidance room, including Nonindicted Party 1, did not know of the fact on the day of crackdown; (b) on the day of crackdown, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Nonindicted Party 1 whether he took a phone, and asked him whether he crackdowns on (title omitted 1) amusement rooms; (c) on May 10, 2003, the Defendant still asked Nonindicted Party 1 to return Nonindicted Party 1’s name and reply to the fact that: (a) the seizure of Nonindicted Party 1, who was under the name of the Nonindicted Party 1, by means of an illegal infringement of property rights, came to know of the fact that the seizure of Nonindicted Party 1 was under the control of the entertainment room was under the control of the entertainment room; and (b) the Defendant did not request Nonindicted Party 1 to return his name and reply to Nonindicted Party 1; and (c) did not request Nonindicted Party 1 to return his name and reply to the local police Agency.

(B) In light of the foregoing, Nonindicted Party 1 made the following statements at an investigative agency, a preservation procedure of evidence, and a court of original instance. The content of the statements can be acknowledged as credibility for the following reasons.

1) Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant would be able to provide control over the amusement room (trade name omitted 2)” before the court below puts down control over (trade name omitted 2) amusement room in the court below, and Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant would be able to provide control over the amusement room (trade name omitted 2).” ② In the procedure for preservation of evidence, Nonindicted 1 made a report to the director at the time of carrying out the assistance service by the Chungcheongnamnam Provincial Police Agency, such as control or this case. If the director at the time was absent, he shall make a report to the chief of the department, and if the chief of the department at the time was absent, he shall make a subsequent report to the chief of the department, and if there is a disturbance in the vehicle, Nonindicted 1 was posted to the chief of the department, who is a private person, and Nonindicted 5’s statement to the Defendant that he would not have been able to provide the defendant with his full statement and the statement to the chief of the police station at the time of the Daejeon Police Agency.

2) On May 9, 2003, Nonindicted Party 1: (i) asked Nonindicted Party 5 to decide on Nonindicted Party 1’s office (name omitted 2); and (ii) asked Nonindicted Party 1 to reply that Nonindicted Party 5’s office was “(name omitted 1) and asked Nonindicted Party 5’s office, and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to decide on Nonindicted Party 5’s office room (name omitted 1); (iii) Nonindicted Party 5’s firm name and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to decide on Nonindicted Party 5’s office room; and (iv) Nonindicted Party 1 asked Nonindicted Party 5’s office’s firm name and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to return Nonindicted Party 5’s firm name and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to Nonindicted Party 5’s office (name omitted 73,74); and (iv) the Defendant did not return Nonindicted Party 1’s written application for search and seizure on the following day; and (iv) the Defendant did not look back to Nonindicted Party 1’s office’s firm name and asked Nonindicted Party 1 to return the written application for search and Seizure.

3) On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1: (a) asked Nonindicted Party 1 to return Nonindicted Party 1’s passport records at the time Nonindicted Party 1’s own office when Nonindicted Party 1’s investigation was conducted; (b) asked Nonindicted Party 3 to inquire Nonindicted Party 1’s office about whether it would be returned; and (c) asked Nonindicted Party 3 to the effect that it would not be returned to Nonindicted Party 1’s office records; (d) Nonindicted Party 1’s reply that it would not be returned to Nonindicted Party 3; (e) Nonindicted Party 1’s reply that Nonindicted Party 3 would not be returned to Nonindicted Party 1’s office records; and (e) Nonindicted Party 1’s reply that Nonindicted Party 3 would not be returned to Nonindicted Party 1’s office records at the time of search and seizure; and (e) Nonindicted Party 2’s reply that Nonindicted Party 3 would not be returned to Nonindicted Party 1’s office records at the time of search and seizure.

4) In addition, unlike the Defendant’s statement that “Non-Indicted 1 was an issue of the call-up and seizure of the call-up is asked to Non-Indicted 1, who is not overcontrol,” Non-Indicted 1 did not mention the issue of the call-up of the entertainment machine. It determined that Non-Indicted 3 changed the call-up at the time of seizure of the call-up from the entertainment room of this case (the trial record No. 185), and explained the reasons for such crackdown to Non-Indicted 1 (the investigation record No. 1444), Non-Indicted 7, who is the owner of the entertainment room of Non-Indicted 1, stated that “Non-Indicted 1 changed the call-up to the reporter of the call-up market of Seoul, while working for the police for 17 years (the investigation record No. 548), and Non-Indicted 3, who made a statement that there is no doubt about the Defendant’s credibility of the call-up (the same shall apply to this case).

(C) Meanwhile, on May 10, 2003, the Defendant received the call from the civil petitioner on his name and received the call from the non-indicted 1, and then came to know of the control over the entertainment room, and the Defendant did not receive any special problem with the non-indicted 1, and did not order the return to the non-indicted 1 upon the request from the non-indicted 1. However, the Defendant asserted that the return was not ordered by the non-indicted 1. However, on May 10, 2003, the Defendant was again at the court of the first instance and later at the court of the first instance, called “(Dong name omitted), the (i) Dong name omitted," and (ii) called “whether it is too unreasonable to regulate the entertainment room,” and the Defendant received the call from the non-indicted 10 after five minutes elapsed, and that the above civil petitioner received the call from the non-indicted 10, and (iii) it was difficult to say that there was any problem with the above order to return the Defendant’s name in the process of regulating the call.

(D) In addition to the above circumstances, in full view of the defendant's statement that there was no precedent of returning the plates confiscated by the parties, such as the instant case, in the case of regulating entertainment rooms, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant as to the destruction of evidence regarding (trade name omitted 1) entertainment rooms among the facts charged in the instant case, is acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and therefore, there is no reason to discuss this part of the defendant's appeal.

(E) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the alteration of the amusement room of this case is not a necessary confiscation, and that the crime of destruction of evidence or the crime of abandonment of duties is not established as voluntary articles. Thus, in the crime of destruction of evidence, the Defendant’s criminal or disciplinary case of another person includes even before the commencement of investigation or disciplinary procedure at the time of destruction of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do134 delivered on March 28, 1995, 82Do274 delivered on April 27, 1982). It is reasonable to view that the alteration board of this case constitutes the object of the crime of destruction of evidence, and it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the alteration board of this case constitutes an object of the crime of destruction of evidence, and that it is difficult for the police officer to obtain instructions from the prosecutor to return the article under his command and supervision, and that it is unlawful to recognize the seizure process of the article of this case as evidence, and that it is still difficult for the Defendant to obtain instructions from the police officer to return it as evidence.

(3) Ex officio determination

However, among the facts charged in this case, this part of the facts charged is examined ex officio as to (1 omitted) crime and abandonment of duties. This part of the facts charged is as described in paragraph (1) of the judgment below. Since the defendant regulated (1) amusement rooms from non-indicted 1 to charges of violating the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act, seizure of an amount equivalent to KRW 81,560,00 and reported to be kept in the above crime and office, it cannot be viewed that the above seizure was transferred to the investigation department of the police station, and the defendant's employees were confiscated for forfeiture of charges. It is not necessary to direct and supervise the crimes of destruction of evidence against the non-indicted 97 and the crime of destruction of evidence against the non-indicted 197, which is the crime of destruction of evidence against the non-indicted 197, which is the crime of destruction of evidence and the crime of destruction of evidence against the non-indicted 17, which are the crime of destruction of evidence of the non-indicted 197, which is the crime of destruction of evidence.

B. Determination as to the abandonment of duty or evidence concerning (trade name omitted 2) amusement rooms among the facts constituting an offense in paragraph (1)

(1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty without any difference in the determination of (trade name omitted 1) amusement rooms as to (trade name omitted 2) amusement rooms and destruction of evidence in the facts charged in the judgment.

(2) The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

(A) As seen in paragraph (2)(b)(1) of the above (mutual omitted 1) part of the entertainment room, it is highly probable that Nonindicted Party 1 had reported in advance that Nonindicted Party 1 was a superior and supervisor (trade name omitted 2) entertainment room, and that it was very likely that Nonindicted Party 1 would support the Defendant as a supervisor (trade name omitted 2) entertainment room. The Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 did not know it in advance is not reliable, but was aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the entertainment room was regulated in advance, and whether the Defendant instructed Nonindicted Party 1 to return the altered machine seizedd in (trade name omitted 2) entertainment room to the owner of the business

(B) Nevertheless, if the Defendant presented Nonindicted 1’s statement (the trial record No. 111, 112 pages) that Nonindicted 1 gave the Defendant an order to return the already confiscated machine as evidence of this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant ordered the Defendant to return the machine that was seized without specifying what amusement room was known, such instruction includes both “(trade name omitted 1) entertainment room” and “(trade name omitted 2) entertainment room.” Although Nonindicted 1 interpreted the Defendant’s order to the effect that it would return the machine that was regulated by “(trade name omitted 1) entertainment room”, it is only the intention of Nonindicted 1 alone, and Nonindicted 1’s order to return the machine that was “(trade name omitted 2) entertainment room” pursuant to the Defendant’s order, so long as the Defendant returned the machine board up to “(trade name omitted 22) entertainment room.”

However, in the case of Non-Indicted 1’s investigation on February 18, 204, Non-Indicted 2’s testimony that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was returned to the Defendant on May 9, 2003 (mutually omitted) and that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was returned to the Defendant who was waiting for his own business (mutually omitted) and that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was sent to the Defendant’s (mutually omitted) and that Non-Indicted 2’s testimony was not returned to the Defendant, and that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was not returned to Non-Indicted 1’s office, and that Non-Indicted 2’s firm name was not returned to the Defendant, and that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was not returned to the Defendant, and that Non-Indicted 1’s firm name was not returned to the Defendant’s office (which is called “non-Indicted 2’s firm name omitted) and thus, the Defendant’s statement that it was no more than the Defendant’s “non-Indicted 1’s firm name.”

C. Determination as to the preparation of a false official document and the uttering of a false official document under paragraph (2) of the facts charged

(1) At the investigative agency and the lower court, the Defendant did not instruct Nonindicted 1 to seize a disposal plate that was prepared in advance with respect to the crackdown on the amusement room (mutual omitted 3) on December 4, 2004, and ② Nonindicted 1 asserted that even around November 14, 2003, prior to the enforcement of the crackdown on the amusement room (mutual omitted 3) of this case, there was a record of seizure of the fake flag board prepared in advance by the same method upon the request of Nonindicted 11, the captain, who was the vessel police officer, and having been punished by the same method. Therefore, it appears that Nonindicted 1 was prevented from committing the crime at the request of the armed forces and transferred his responsibility to the Defendant. Rather, Nonindicted 1 appears to have been responsible for committing the crime, and (3) there was no interview with Nonindicted 12, 13, and 12, who was the actual manager of the amusement room (mutual omitted 3). Therefore, the charges charged by the Defendant are different from the facts charged.

(2) However, at the investigative agency and court of the court below, Nonindicted Party 1: (a) at least 3 days prior to the control of the amusement room; (b) at the office before several hours prior to the control of the amusement room, Nonindicted Party 1 instructed the police officer to seize it; (c) at the place prior to the control of the amusement room; (d) at the place prior to the entry of Nonindicted Party 13, Nonindicted Party 1’s arrival in front of the amusement room (mutual omitted 3); and (c) at the place prior to the entry of the Defendant’s front of the amusement room; and (d) at the place where Nonindicted Party 12’s entry was omitted, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 3’s signature and seal were posted to the police station; and (d) at the time of entry of Nonindicted Party 1’s order and seizure, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 stated that there were no other reasons for the entry of Nonindicted Party 3’s order and seizure on behalf of the Defendant.

(3) On the other hand, the Defendant alleged that he did not face the call of Nonindicted Party 12, but the Defendant’s telephone number 2: (1) Nonindicted Party 1 was sent from 3 to 3: (2) Nonindicted Party 2’s mobile phone number 2: (3) Nonindicted Party 1 omitted, and (4) Nonindicted Party 2 omitted from 1 to 3’s mobile phone number 2: (2) Nonindicted Party 3 omitted from 12’s mobile phone number 2: (3) Nonindicted Party 4 omitted from 1 to 40, and (4) Nonindicted Party 2 omitted from 3’s mobile phone number 1:5:4,000 to 20, and (4) Nonindicted Party 1 omitted from 20, the call number 2:3 of Nonindicted Party 12’s mobile phone number 2:

(4) In addition, Nonindicted 12 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 12 gave Nonindicted 1, etc. 1, etc., prepared as Nonindicted 2, who cannot disclose his name at the investigation agency, and that the police officer sent 2 gamblings at front of the Kabter as “low” (528,529 pages of investigation records) and brought Nonindicted 14, who is the president of the 10th trial court, and Nonindicted 14, who was in the name of Nonindicted 3, who was in the 14th trial office, was in accord with Nonindicted 3’s testimony at the 10th trial court, and that Nonindicted 14, who was in the 14th trial office’s name, changed from Nonindicted 14 to Nonindicted 14, who was in the 10th trial office’s name, was in conflict with that of Nonindicted 3, who was in the 10th trial office’s testimony at the 10th trial, and that Nonindicted 14, who was in the 14th trial office’s name and 14th trial.

(5) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant conspireds with Non-Indicted 12 to commit the instant crime in sequence with Non-Indicted 12, Non-Indicted 1, and Non-Indicted 12, and therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the court below should be reversed on the ground that there is an ex officio ground for reversal of the duty to waive (trade name omitted 2) of the crime of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the fact that the duty to waive and destroy evidence about the amusement room (trade name omitted 1) of the defendant's appeal is reversed on the ground that the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the duty to waive the duty to waive the amusement room is in conflict with that of destruction of evidence about the same amusement room among the judgment below, and the above part and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without determining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

The defendant is the person who was the chief of the police station.

1. In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1:

On May 10, 203, at the (name omitted) police station room of the same month, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted 3, etc., who were in charge of Nonindicted Party 2’s operation (trade name omitted2) located in Daejeon Special Police Agency’s living order room, and Nonindicted 7’s operation (trade name omitted 1) located in the same (name omitted) as evidence provided for criminal acts by regulating Nonindicted Party 1’s respective sound records, video products, and game softwares’s violation of the Game Software Act, which were altered from Nonindicted Party 1’s above (name omitted 19 million won) to Nonindicted Party 1’s office of the above (name omitted 17:00,000,000 from Nonindicted Party 1’s office of the above (name omitted 1); and Nonindicted Party 1’s office of the above (name omitted 2); and Nonindicted Party 1’s office of the above (name omitted 81’2,560,000) to transfer the aforementioned evidence to the said police station for the purpose of seizure and seizure.

2. In collusion with the above non-indicted 1, 13, and 12

On December 4 of the same year, at the above police station division leader of the police station, the defendant ordered the above non-indicted 1 to read "(name 3 omitted) that "I will not seize any machine that was altered when controlling (name 3 omitted)," and the above non-indicted 12, who is the actual manager of the entertainment room, prepared a discard plate for juveniles in advance at the above (name 3 omitted), and at the above (name 3 omitted), the above non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 13 prepared a false attachment protocol at the police station's first and second (name 15:00) on the same day, the above non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 13 prepared a false attachment protocol at the police station's first and second (name 3 omitted) stating that "I will actually alter to seize the machine board that was provided to criminal acts while controlling the violation of the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act," but the above non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 2's signature and seizure of the first and second (2) bulletin."

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 12

1. Statements of the defendant in part of the trial records of the court below;

1. The statement of the witness, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3 in the trial records of the court below

1. Statement of the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted Party 1 in Daejeon District Court (Case Number omitted)

1. Some statements in each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor (including the part of the interrogation of the accused non-indicted 1);

1. Statement on Nonindicted 1’s written statement prepared by the prosecutor

1. The written statement of Nonindicted 12 prepared by the prosecutor is partially recorded

1. Nonindicted 1’s written self-statement

1. The statement of Nonindicted 9

1. The statement of the certified copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the prosecutor in Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2004 type No. 10782

1. The statement of each of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the public prosecutor in Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office 2004 type No. 33644; and

1. Analysis of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's phone call details, each Defendant's cell phone call details, Nonindicted 12 mobile phone reception details, Nonindicted 12 mobile phone reception details, (name omitted), and (name omitted) the head of the crime prevention room and the telephone reception details;

1. Each criminal report (investigative records, 218, 406, 472 pages), each control report (investigative records, 220, 409, 475 pages), control manual (investigative records, 222, 415, 477 pages), control report on business place (investigative records, 228, 414, 486 pages), records of seizure (investigative records, 411, 481 pages), confirmation as to whether to waive the ownership of seized articles (investigative records, 413 pages, 483 pages);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 155(1), 30(a) of the Criminal Act, 227, 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 227, 30 (a point of Preparation of False Public Document), Articles 229, 227, and 30 (a point of Exercising False Public Document) of the Criminal Act.

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

In collusion with subordinate officers under his command and supervision, the nature of the crime of this case in which the defendant destroyed evidence obtained in the investigation case, prepared and used false official documents, and the criminal defendant does not seem to repent the crime of this case. The crime of this case committed by police officers in charge of investigation duties and criminal law during the investigation process is a serious illegal act that leads to the maintenance of social order and the necessity of strict punishment under the law. Thus, the punishment was determined by comprehensively taking account of the contents, scope, means and methods of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, and other various matters provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, environment, transfer, etc., as shown in the records and arguments of this case.

1. The defendant, in collusion with the non-indicted 1 on May 10, 2003, returned the marbry confiscated to the operator of the entertainment room (trade omitted 1) non-indicted 7 on May 10, 203, and abandons his duties without good cause.

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime as seen in the determination of the grounds for appeal, and thus, should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the destruction of evidence relating to (trade name omitted 1) amusement rooms, it shall not be sentenced not to

2. The defendant, in collusion with non-indicted 1 on May 10, 2003, discontinued with the operator of the entertainment room (trade name omitted2) and abandons his duties without any justifiable reason, while destroying evidence in relation to another person's criminal case.

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime as stated in the judgment on the grounds of appeal as above, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Dok-man (Presiding Judge) Full-time correspondence