Whether an administrative secretary is punished for violation of the private law when he/she engages in the business of preparing a criminal complaint;

In light of the provisions of Article 2 (1) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 3 (1) and Article 40 of the same Act, Article 2 (3) of the Judicial Documents Act, even if submitted to the chief of the police station who is an administrative agency, the preparation of the above documents belongs to the documents related to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office, and the preparation of the documents falls under the scope of the duties of the judicial assistant, so if the administrative assistant engages in the preparation of the above documents as a business

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 75No24 delivered on March 27, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 2 (1) 1 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Judicial Documents Act, the preparation of documents related to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office is clear that the preparation of documents related to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office belongs to the affairs of the judicial secretary, and according to Article 3 (1) of the same Act Article 3 of the same Act, a person, other than the judicial secretary, is prohibited from engaging in the affairs of the judicial secretary, and Article 40 of the same Act provides a penal provision of the violator. Thus, even if the chief of the police office is submitted to the chief of the police office, the preparation of the criminal complaint belongs to the affairs of the court and the prosecutor's office and belongs to the affairs of the judicial secretary. Thus, even if he is submitted to the chief of the police office, the court below, which is an administrative secretary, applied the penal provision under the Judicial Documents Act on the preparation of the documents, is justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do2224, Feb. 10, 1970).

Therefore, the argument is without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)