B. The meaning of "where the registration certificate has been destroyed or lost" under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

C. The meaning of guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

B. The time when the certificate of completion of registration under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is lost includes the case of loss, but it does not include the case where it is difficult to obtain the certificate of completion of registration due to the fact that the certificate of completion of registration is being other persons.

C. The meaning of guarantee under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to confirming that the applicant for registration and the nominal owner on the registry are the same person in fact, with due care as a good manager. As such, a person who prepares a guarantee certificate only by another person’s speech or other data while not knowing that the applicant is the same person as the person on the registry, cannot be exempted from punishment under Article 186-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Defendant 3’s appeal is dismissed.

In light of the facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the same Defendants committed the act against their will on the basis that the victim was in a state of lack of thinking or judgment.

However, even if the gist of the evidence stated in the judgment of the court of first instance is fully analyzed, there is no critical document that the victim was in a state of lack of thinking or judgment when the case occurred except the statement of the highest rank prepared by the prosecutor, the testimony of the highest rank in the court of first instance, and the mental sentiment of the victim prepared by the person, and there is no critical document that the victim was in a state of lack of thinking or judgment (whether part of the material was in a state of mental condition is not in a state of mental condition). Thus, the above lowest judgment opinion expressed in the above materials cannot be considered as a supplementary document of the court's ability to judge the mental state of the victim, barring any special circumstances. However, in order to be admitted as evidence, the opinion on the field belonging to the professional knowledge and experience should be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt of the court.

Furthermore, in this case, although the victim's mental and physical condition at the time of the occurrence of the case should have had the capacity to perform his duties, it constitutes a so-called criminal act like the judgment of the court below, and as a state of mental disability, it does not constitute another crime, separate from the composition of the other crime. Thus, considering all the data indicated in the records, the above opinion of the maximum insignia cannot be said to be insufficient to recognize that the victim's mental condition at the time of the occurrence of the case as an insane.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to point out that the court below's maintenance of the first trial group which was found guilty by employing the above appraisal opinion as evidence is against the rules of evidence and thus, it is reasonable to point out this point.

2. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

The phrase "when the certificate of completion of registration issued under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is destroyed or lost" includes the phrase "when the certificate of completion of registration is destroyed or lost, but because the certificate of completion of registration is several other persons, it does not include cases where it is practically difficult to receive it, and the meaning of the phrase "guarantee" under the same law refers to confirming that the person applying for registration at present and the nominal owner on the registry are the same person in fact with due care of a good manager. Therefore, a person who prepares a certificate of guarantee by another person's words or other materials cannot be exempted from punishment under Article 186-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act when he/she does not know whether the applicant is the same person on the registry.

In this case, there is evidence indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, and according to the prosecutor's interrogation protocol as to the defendant 3 and the contents of the interrogation protocol as to the non-indicted 1 as to the defendant 2, the defendant 3 did not have the victim's right to registration by the oral statement of the defendant 2, and even though the victim was unaware of who is the victim, he did not know that the defendant 2 had the victim's right to registration, it is recognized that the defendant 3 did not have the victim's right to registration, and the victim's certificate was reported only by the victim's certificate of seal impression, and the defendant 1, who was aware of the contents, authorized the victim's right to guarantee and prepared his right to guarantee his name with his consent. Thus, the

3. Therefore, the part concerning Defendant 1, 2, etc. of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the collegiate division of the Seoul Criminal Court to render a new trial. Defendant 3's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)