Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
When a public official's use of assisting staff is a dutyless act
Supreme Court, Jan. 9, 2020, 2019Do11698 (judgment)
Case name: 직권남용권리행사방해[검사 전보인사 관련 직권남용권리행사방해 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does it mean, under Article 123 of the Criminal Act, that a person has been made to do something they have no legal duty to do, and when is it so where a public official, abusing authority over a matter within his own duty, has an assisting staff member carry out the duty?
Holding
It means a public official's abuse of authority that makes another person do something they have no legal duty to do. Having an assisting staff member carry out a factual act within the official's own authority ends in the official's own execution of duty, so in principle it is not such a case; only where the standards and procedures are concretely specified in statute and the staff member also holds an independent authority and role in applying them and taking part in the procedure may making that staff member breach them be the dutyless act. In this case, transfer assignment of prosecutors carries wide discretion within the personnel authority's power, and the branch-office assignment system for career prosecutors was only one of many criteria, not an absolute criterion, so it was hard to see the instructed drafting as compelling a dutyless act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 직무집행의 기준과 절차가 법령에 구체적으로 명시되어 있고 실무 담당자에게도 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있다면 실무 담당자로 하여금 그러한 기준과 절차를 위반하여 직무집행을 보조하게 한 경우에는 ‘의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the standards and procedures for the execution of duties are specifically stipulated in statutes and regulations, and where a person in charge of practical affairs is also vested with an inherent authority and role to apply the standards for the execution of duties and to participate in the procedures, causing such a person in charge of practical affairs to assist in the execution of duties in violation of such standards and procedures falls under "causing a person to perform an act not obligated to be performed."
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
직무집행의 기준과 절차가 법령에 구체적으로 명시되어 있고 실무 담당자에게도 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있다면
Unofficial English translation
where the standards and procedures for the execution of duties are specifically stipulated in statutes and regulations, and where a person in charge of practical affairs is also vested with an inherent authority and role to apply the standards for the execution of duties and to participate in the procedures,
Factors
- 직무집행의 기준과 절차가 법령에 구체적으로 명시되어 있고
- 실무 담당자에게도 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있다면
- 인사권자는 법령의 제한을 벗어나지 않는 한 여러 사정을 참작하여 전보인사의 내용을 결정할 필요가 있고 이를 결정함에 있어 상당한 재량을 가지며
- 검사인사담당 검사가 검사의 전보인사안을 작성할 때 지켜야 할 일의적·절대적 기준이라고 볼 수 없고
Unofficial English translation
• where the standards and procedures for the execution of duties are specifically stipulated in statutes and regulations, and
• where a person in charge of practical affairs is also vested with an inherent authority and role to apply the standards for the execution of duties and to participate in the procedures,
• the person with personnel authority needs to determine the content of transfer personnel assignments by taking various circumstances into consideration, unless going beyond the limitations of statutes and regulations, and has considerable discretion in making such determination, and
• it cannot be regarded as the unequivocal and absolute standard to be observed by the prosecutor in charge of prosecutor personnel assignments when preparing a personnel assignment plan for the transfer of a prosecutor,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 2. 10. 선고 2010도13766 판결(공2011상, 602)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13766 decided February 10, 2011 (Gong 2011 Sang, 602)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2011. 2. 10. 선고 2010도13766 판결(공2011상, 602), 대법원 2012. 1. 27. 선고 2010도11884 판결(공2012상, 403), 대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도3328 판결, 대법원 2017. 10. 31. 선고 2017도12534 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where several criteria for the official act cannot all be satisfied and the staff member must weigh their relative weight within discretion, what makes that weighing an abuse of authority rather than an exercise of discretion?
The retrial judgment of the Seoul Central District Court Division on how far transfer-assignment discretion may go in these facts would show the rule in application. Any amendment to Article 34(1), 35 or 35-2 of the Prosecution Offices Act, or a new deliberation of the Prosecution Personnel Committee fixing absolute criteria for transfers, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The standard form differs: primary is labeled as a requirement statement, while independent is labeled as case application. Both describe the same test, but primary states the general rule first, which may explain the different label.
그가 지켜야 할 직무집행의 기준과 절차를 위반하여 법령상 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다는 이유로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where several criteria for the official act cannot all be satisfied and the staff member must weigh their relative weight within discretion, what makes that weighing an abuse of authority rather than an exercise of discretion?” vs Independent “Which specific statutory personnel standards would make a contrary instruction to the personnel prosecutor constitute requiring an act without legal obligation?”
Primary asks when weighing among criteria becomes abuse rather than discretion, while independent asks which specific statutory personnel standards would make an instruction a dutyless act.
그러나 직무집행의 기준과 절차가 법령에 구체적으로 명시되어 있고 실무 담당자에게도 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있다면 실무 담당자로 하여금 그러한 기준과 절차를 위반하여 직무집행을 보조하게 한 경우에는 ‘의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’에 해당한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 18 July 2019 (2019No424), found that the defendant, then Director-General of the Prosecution Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Justice, directed the prosecutor in charge of personnel affairs to draft the proposal for the second half of 2015. It held that the proposal, which would again transfer a career prosecutor already serving at a branch office to another such branch office, substantially breached the branch-office assignment system for career prosecutors, one of the principles and criteria of prosecutor personnel management. It reasoned that the personnel criteria could be applied supplementarily or by priority as circumstances required, but that an assignment plainly at odds with each criterion could not be tolerated, so the instructed drafting was compelling a dutyless act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on the offence. A transfer assignment belongs to the personnel authority's power, which may weigh various circumstances within statutory limits, and a staff member drafting the proposal under a direction or delegation likewise holds authority and role within that scope. It added that the branch-office assignment system for career prosecutors, kept as one criterion or consideration, was not an absolute criterion for drafting a transfer proposal and enjoyed no evident superiority over other criteria, and that the target's prompt submission of a resignation alone showed no breach, so a conviction on that reasoning could not stand.
Distinguishing conditions
- A matter in which the standards and procedures for the duty are not concretely specified in statute, so the condition the Court laid down is absent.
- A staff member to whom no independent authority and role in applying the criteria and taking part in the procedure is given, so that the act ends in the official's own execution of duty.
- Work the staff member did that did breach a criterion or procedure concretely provided in statute, which the Court said must be judged case by case on the content of the relevant provisions.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, identify the provision that sets the standard and procedure for the official act, and ask whether it is concretely specified and whether the assisting staff member holds an independent authority and role. Then set the measure said to be compelled against every criterion and consideration in the field, since the Court refused to let one criterion prevail over the others without a stated ground. Finally check whether the file shows a breach of a statutory criterion itself rather than an inconvenience or an unwelcome outcome for the person affected.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 직권남용권리행사방해죄에서 말하는 ‘사람으로 하여금 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’의 의미 / 공무원이 자신의 직무권한에 속하는 사항에 관하여 실무 담당자로 하여금 직무집행을 보조하게 한 행위가 ‘의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’에 해당하는 경우 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 법무부 검찰국장인 피고인이, 검찰국이 마련하는 인사안 결정과 관련한 업무권한을 남용하여 검사인사담당 검사 갑으로 하여금 2015년 하반기 검사인사에서 부치지청에 근무하고 있던 경력검사 을을 다른 부치지청으로 다시 전보시키는 내용의 인사안을 작성하게 함으로써 의무 없는 일을 하게 하였다고 하여 직권남용권리행사방해로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 갑으로 하여금 위 인사안을 작성하게 한 것을 두고 피고인의 직무집행을 보조하는 갑으로 하여금 그가 지켜야 할 직무집행의 기준과 절차를 위반하여 법령상 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of the phrase "caused a person to perform an act not obligated to be performed" as used in the crime of abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights / Cases where an act of a public official, having a person in charge of practical affairs assist in the execution of duties with respect to a matter falling within the scope of the official's own duties, falls under "caused a person to perform an act not obligated to be performed," and the criteria for determining whether it so falls [2] In a case where the defendant, the Director General of the Prosecution Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, was indicted for abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights on the ground that, by abusing his authority over the work relating to the determination of personnel assignment plans prepared by the Prosecution Bureau, he caused prosecutor A, the prosecutor in charge of prosecutor personnel assignments, to prepare a personnel assignment plan transferring career prosecutor B, who was then serving at a branch district prosecutors' office, to another branch district prosecutors' office in the personnel assignments for the second half of 2015, thereby causing A to perform an act not obligated to be performed, a case in which it is difficult to regard the defendant's having caused A to prepare the aforesaid personnel assignment plan as falling under a case of causing A, who assists in the execution of the defendant's duties, to perform an act not obligated to be performed under applicable statutes and regulations by violating the standards and procedures for the execution of duties that A was required to observe
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제123조의 직권남용권리행사방해죄에서 말하는 ‘사람으로 하여금 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’란 공무원이 직권을 남용하여 다른 사람으로 하여금 법령상 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때를 의미한다. 따라서 공무원이 자신의 직무권한에 속하는 사항에 관하여 실무 담당자로 하여금 직무집행을 보조하는 사실행위를 하도록 하더라도 이는 공무원 자신의 직무집행으로 귀결될 뿐이므로 원칙적으로 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때에 해당한다고 할 수 없다. 그러나 직무집행의 기준과 절차가 법령에 구체적으로 명시되어 있고 실무 담당자에게도 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있다면 실무 담당자로 하여금 그러한 기준과 절차를 위반하여 직무집행을 보조하게 한 경우에는 ‘의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때’에 해당한다. 공무원의 직무집행을 보조하는 실무 담당자에게 직무집행의 기준을 적용하고 절차에 관여할 고유한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 있는지 여부 및 공무원의 직권남용행위로 인하여 실무 담당자가 한 일이 그러한 기준이나 절차를 위반하여 한 것으로서 법령상 의무 없는 일인지 여부는 관련 법령 등의 내용에 따라 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 법무부 검찰국장인 피고인이, 검찰국이 마련하는 인사안 결정과 관련한 업무권한을 남용하여 검사인사담당 검사 갑으로 하여금 2015년 하반기 검사인사에서 부치지청에 근무하고 있던 경력검사 을을 다른 부치지청으로 다시 전보시키는 내용의 인사안을 작성하게 함으로써 의무 없는 일을 하게 하였다고 하여 직권남용권리행사방해로 기소된 사안에서, 검사에 대한 전보인사는 검찰청법 등 관련 법령에 근거한 것으로서 법령에서 정한 원칙과 기준에 따라야 하나, 한편 전보인사는 인사권자의 권한에 속하고, 검사는 고도의 전문지식과 직무능력, 인격을 갖출 것이 요구되므로 인사권자는 법령의 제한을 벗어나지 않는 한 여러 사정을 참작하여 전보인사의 내용을 결정할 필요가 있고 이를 결정함에 있어 상당한 재량을 가지며, 인사권자의 지시 또는 위임에 따라 검사인사에 관한 직무집행을 보조 내지 보좌하는 실무 담당자도 그 범위에서 일정한 권한과 역할이 부여되어 재량을 가진다고 볼 수 있는 점, 위 인사안 작성 당시 경력검사 부치지청 배치제도가 인사기준 내지 고려사항의 하나로 유지되고 있었더라도, 이는 부치지청에서 근무한 경력검사를 차기 전보인사에서 배려한다는 내용에 불과하며, 관련 법령이나 검찰인사위원회의 심의·의결사항 등을 전제로 한 여러 인사기준 또는 다양한 고려사항들 중 하나로서, 검사인사담당 검사가 검사의 전보인사안을 작성할 때 지켜야 할 일의적·절대적 기준이라고 볼 수 없고, 다른 인사기준 내지 다양한 고려사항들보다 일방적으로 우위에 있는 것으로 볼 만한 근거도 찾기 어려운 점 등의 사정을 종합하면, 피고인이 갑으로 하여금 위 인사안을 작성하게 한 것을 두고 피고인의 직무집행을 보조하는 갑으로 하여금 그가 지켜야 할 직무집행의 기준과 절차를 위반하여 법령상 의무 없는 일을 하게 한 때에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 피고인에게 유죄를 인정한 원심의 판단에 직권남용권리행사방해죄에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제123조 [2] 형법 제123조, 검찰청법 제34조 제1항, 제35조, 제35조의2, 정부조직법 제2조, 형사소송법 제325조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger