[횡령][공1982.4.15.(678),355]
In a case where the farmland purchased jointly with the non-farmer was disposed of under the name of the defendant's sole name after the transfer of ownership, the part of embezzlement (negative)
In a case where the Defendant jointly purchased the Nonindicted Party, a non-farmer, and registered the ownership transfer under the Defendant’s sole name, the Nonindicted Party cannot acquire farmland under the Farmland Reform Act as a non-farmer, and the Defendant cannot be said to have kept his co-ownership right of the said farmland from the non-indicted. Therefore, even if the Defendant voluntarily disposed of the said farmland, it does not constitute embezzlement
Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 69Do1648 Decided October 28, 1969
Supreme Court Decision 79Do141 delivered on March 27, 1979
Defendant
Prosecutor
Suwon District Court Decision 81No178 delivered on September 18, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment of the court below is just in support of the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant for the same purport on the ground that the above order, etc. cannot be acquired as farmland under the Farmland Reform Act as non-farmer because the defendant purchased the land in the order of non-indicted 1 and two and the funds jointly with the defendant, and transferred the ownership registration under the name of the defendant's sole name. Thus, the defendant cannot be held in custody of co-ownership of farmland from his own persons (see Supreme Court Decisions 69Do1648, Oct. 28, 1969; 79Do141, Mar. 27, 1979). There is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act or the embezzlement, such as the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)