Main Issues

Cases of recognizing embezzlement without examining and determining the validity of the purchase and sale of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act;

Summary of Judgment

If a farmland sales contract is concluded without proof as prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, the effect of the sale does not occur, so even if ownership is not transferred to each owner and each owner sells it again to another, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

Appellant, Defendant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, etc.

Reasons

According to Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, only the non-indicted 2 corporation was able to sell or purchase the farmland with the verification of its government office at the seat of the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and purchase, and even if the non-indicted 2 corporation sold the farmland again to a third party for sale, it cannot be deemed that the person who keeps another's property has embezzled the property. According to the original judgment, the defendant was not guilty on April 23, 291 by changing the ownership of the non-indicted 2 to the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and purchase of the land at the time of sale and the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 2 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 4 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 2 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 2 corporation for sale and sale of the land at the time of sale and the non-indicted 3 corporation for sale and the non-indicted 2 corporation for sale.