Whether the latter part of Article 37 subparag. 3 of the Resident Registration Act applies where a third party, who is not a person obligated to report under the Resident Registration Act, makes a report or application for registration of unknown domicile to another person, or makes an application or request for fact-finding for registration of unknown domicile

In full view of Articles 8, 10 through 12, 20, and the legislative purport of the latter part of Article 37 subparag. 3 of the Resident Registration Act (amended by Act No. 12279, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same), even if a third party, who is not the person obligated to report under the Resident Registration Act, files a report or application for registration of unknown domicile to another person, or files an application or request investigation of fact-finding for registration of unknown domicile, it cannot be deemed as a report or application pursuant to the Resident Registration Act, and thus, the latter part of Article 37 subparag. 3 of the Resident Registration Act cannot be deemed as applicable.

Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, and 20 of the Resident Registration Act (Amended by Act No. 12279, Jan. 21, 2014); Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, and 37 subparag. 3

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2012No3915 decided November 29, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The latter part of Article 37 subparag. 3 of the Resident Registration Act (amended by Act No. 12279, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that “a person who files a false report or application with respect to a resident registration or resident registration certificate” shall be punished.

Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, the Resident Registration Act provides that the registration of a resident of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or the correction, cancellation, or registration of unknown domicile shall be made according to the report by the person liable for report as prescribed by the Resident Registration Act (Articles 8, 10 through 12), and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may investigate the facts when the person liable for report fails to file a report within the prescribed period. If the person liable for report fails to file a report within the prescribed period of time after conducting fact-finding, peremptory notice or public notice on the person liable for report, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall either ex officio make a resident registration or correct, cancel, or make a registration of unknown domicile by the head of a Tong/Ri, or by the confirmation of the head of a Tong/Ri/Ri, and if the person liable for report is not clear as a result of the above fact-finding or public notice, the registration of unknown domicile shall be made (Article 20). Unlike the Resident Registration Act,

In full view of the contents and legislative purport of the aforementioned provisions, even if a third party, who is not the person obligated to report under the Resident Registration Act, files an application for the registration of unknown domicile to a third party, or files an application or a request for fact-finding for the registration of unknown domicile, such application cannot be deemed as a report or application under the Resident Registration Act. Therefore, the latter part of Article 37 subparag. 3

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of preparing and submitting the “application for request for registration of unknown residence” as stated in the facts charged does not constitute a report or application under the Resident Registration Act, and thus, even if the Defendant, not the person obligated to report the registration of unknown domicile, filed a request for request for registration of unknown domicile, and requested to investigate the facts for the registration of unknown domicile or investigation of unknown domicile against Nonindicted 1 and 2 residing in the apartment owned by him/her, the lower court cannot be deemed as the “person who files a false fact regarding the resident registration”

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, there are some inappropriate parts of the reasoning of the lower judgment, but the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “application for resident registration” as prescribed by Article 37 subparag. 3 of the Resident Registration Act, contrary

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)