Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Arabic translation outside the translator-administrator qualification system
Supreme Court, Dec. 24, 2024, 2023Do13673 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 행정사법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where no qualification system for translating a particular foreign language has actually been put into practice and operated, may translating a document related to the work of an administrative agency by a person without the foreign-language translator administrator qualification be punished under Article 36(1)(i) of the Administrative Service Agents Act?
Holding
In principle, a person without the qualification who translates documents related to the work of an administrative agency commits the act prohibited by Article 3(1) and is subject to the criminal penalty in Article 36(1)(i) of the Administrative Service Agents Act, unless there are special circumstances. But where no qualification system for translating a particular foreign language has ever been put into practice and operated, that translation lies outside the qualification system the statutes protect, so it cannot be punished as the work of an administrative service agent. No Arabic examination has ever been held, and a criminal provision on unqualified practice may not be construed against the defendants, so their translations were not a prohibited act.
Points at issue, verbatim
행정사법 제2조 제1항 제3호의 ‘행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류의 번역 업무’와 관련하여 애초부터 특정 외국어의 번역에 관한 자격제도가 실제로 실시·운영되고 있다고 볼 수 없는 경우, 그러한 외국어의 번역 행위를 행정사 아닌 사람의 행정사 업무행위라고 보아 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
In connection with 'the work of translating documents related to the work of administrative agencies' in Article 2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Attorney Act, where it cannot be regarded that a qualification system concerning the translation of a particular foreign language has actually been implemented and operated from the outset, whether an act of translation in such a foreign language may be punished by regarding it as an act of an administrative attorney's work by a person who is not an administrative attorney (negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
애초부터 특정 외국어의 번역에 관한 자격제도가 실제로 실시·운영되고 있다고 볼 수 없다면, 그러한 외국어의 번역 행위는 관련 법령에 의하여 보호되는 외국어번역행정사 자격제도의 바깥에서 이루어지는 것으로서
Unofficial English translation
If it cannot be regarded that a qualification system concerning the translation of a particular foreign language has actually been implemented and operated from the outset, an act of translation in such a foreign language is carried out outside the Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney qualification system, which is protected by the relevant statutes and regulations, and thus
Factors
- 외국어번역행정사의 자격요건을 갖추지 못한 채
- 행정사법 제2조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 ‘행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류의 번역 업무’를 하는 것이 같은 법 제3조 제1항에서 금지하는 행위로서 같은 법 제36조 제1항 제1호에 따른 형사처벌의 대상이 되는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
- 애초부터 특정 외국어의 번역에 관한 자격제도가 실제로 실시·운영되고 있다고 볼 수 없는 경우
- 아랍어 분야에서 외국어번역행정사 자격시험이 시행되지 않고 있는 현행 법제하에서
Unofficial English translation
• without meeting the qualification requirements for a Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney,
• whether engaging in 'the work of translating documents related to the work of administrative agencies' as provided in Article 2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Attorney Act constitutes an act prohibited by Article 3, paragraph (1) of the same Act and thus becomes subject to criminal punishment under Article 36, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the same Act (in principle, affirmative)
• where it cannot be regarded that a qualification system concerning the translation of a particular foreign language has actually been implemented and operated from the outset,
• under the current legal system in which the qualification examination for Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorneys is not being administered in the field of Arabic,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
국가에 의하여 외국어번역행정사 자격제도가 운영되고 있지 않은 외국어의 경우, 행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류를 외국어번역행정사 자격이 없는 사람이 번역하는 업무를 업으로 하더라도 행정사법 제3조 제1항을 위반한 것으로 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In the case of a foreign language for which the Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney qualification system is not operated by the State, even if a person who does not hold the Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney qualification makes it his business to translate documents related to the work of administrative agencies into that foreign language, it cannot be regarded as a violation of Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Attorney Act.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the Ministry of Interior and Safety begins an Arabic foreign-language translator administrator examination but sets no minimum number of successful candidates for Arabic, can translation carried out before that examination began still be punished?
A decision setting an Arabic foreign-language translator administrator examination, or a further amendment to the Administrative Service Agents Act or its Enforcement Decree, would call for this entry to be read again. So would a later decision construing the criminal provisions on unqualified practice in the light of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the ruling as setting a new standard that translation in a language with no operating system falls outside the protected scheme. The independent reading does not identify a precedent relationship from the text, so the two differ on whether this is new.
국가에 의하여 외국어번역행정사 자격제도가 운영되고 있지 않은 외국어의 경우, 행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류를 외국어번역행정사 자격이 없는 사람이 번역하는 업무를 업으로 하더라도 행정사법 제3조 제1항을 위반한 것으로 볼 수는 없다.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 Incheon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 8 September 2023 (2021No4577), held that the foreign-language translator administrator qualification and system form separately for each foreign language, so that where no examination exists for a language, that language's translation is not included in the 'translation' in Article 2(1)(iii) of the Administrative Service Agents Act. It therefore acquitted the defendants of translating into Korean, among others, Arabic documents such as a refugee recognition application intended for submission to the Incheon Immigration Office. It also held that the charge against Defendant 1 of carrying on unqualified document drafting was not proved.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that result. Because Article 3(1) prohibits a non-agent from carrying on the work in Article 2, the foreign-language translator administrator qualification must be acquired by passing the examination conducted by the Minister of Interior and Safety, and since no Arabic examination has ever been held, it cannot be concluded that the Arabic qualification system is in operation, so 'administrative service agent' in Article 3(1) does not include a foreign-language translator administrator in the Arabic field. It added that where the state does not operate the qualification system for a foreign language, such translation is carried on outside that system and cannot be punished, and that the criminal provisions on unqualified practice must not be construed unfavourably to the defendants, and dismissed all appeals by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A foreign language for which the state actually operates a foreign-language translator administrator qualification system, such as English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German or Russian.
- Translation that is not of a document related to the work of an administrative agency, since Article 2(1)(iii) reaches only such documents.
- A charge of unqualified document drafting, which the Court left to the sufficiency of proof on the record rather than to the qualification-system rule.
Record verification notes
Fix the date of each translation and list the foreign languages then covered by the examination, since the decision relies on Article 9(3) and Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Service Agents Act, before its amendment by Presidential Decree No. 34364 of 26 March 2024. Confirm that every document was one intended for submission to an administrative agency, as here a refugee recognition application for the Incheon Immigration Office, because that is what Article 2(1)(iii) reaches. Then check whether the file carries the notice of the Korea Industrial Human Resources Corporation's examination plan or the reply from the Ministry of Interior and Safety on which the Court relied.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 외국어번역행정사의 자격요건을 갖추지 못한 채 행정사법 제2조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 ‘행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류의 번역 업무’를 하는 것이 같은 법 제3조 제1항에서 금지하는 행위로서 같은 법 제36조 제1항 제1호에 따른 형사처벌의 대상이 되는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 행정사법 제2조 제1항 제3호의 ‘행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류의 번역 업무’와 관련하여 애초부터 특정 외국어의 번역에 관한 자격제도가 실제로 실시·운영되고 있다고 볼 수 없는 경우, 그러한 외국어의 번역 행위를 행정사 아닌 사람의 행정사 업무행위라고 보아 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 행정사가 아닌 사람에 대하여 ‘행정기관의 업무에 관련된 서류의 번역 업무’를 금지하는 규정인 행정사법 제3조 제1항의 ‘행정사’에 아랍어 분야의 외국어번역행정사가 포함되는지 여부(소극) / 아랍어 분야에서 외국어번역행정사 자격시험이 시행되지 않고 있는 현행 법제하에서 무자격 행위의 형사처벌에 관한 행정사법 관련 규정을 피고인들에게 불리하게 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, without meeting the qualification requirements for a Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney, engaging in 'the work of translating documents related to the work of administrative agencies' as provided in Article 2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Attorney Act constitutes an act prohibited by Article 3, paragraph (1) of the same Act and thus becomes subject to criminal punishment under Article 36, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the same Act (in principle, affirmative) / In connection with 'the work of translating documents related to the work of administrative agencies' in Article 2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Attorney Act, where it cannot be regarded that a qualification system concerning the translation of a particular foreign language has actually been implemented and operated from the outset, whether an act of translation in such a foreign language may be punished by regarding it as an act of an administrative attorney's work by a person who is not an administrative attorney (negative) [2] Whether 'the administrative attorney' in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Attorney Act, a provision prohibiting persons who are not administrative attorneys from engaging in 'the work of translating documents related to the work of administrative agencies', includes a Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorney in the field of Arabic (negative) / Whether, under the current legal system in which the qualification examination for Foreign Language Translation Administrative Attorneys is not being administered in the field of Arabic, the provisions of the Administrative Attorney Act relating to criminal punishment for unqualified acts may be interpreted to the disadvantage of the defendants (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정사법 제1조, 제2조 제1항 제3호, 제3조 제1항, 제36조 제1항 제1호 [2] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 행정사법 제2조 제1항 제3호, 제3조 제1항, 제36조 제1항 제1호
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