According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the land at issue in this case was originally owned by Nonindicted 1, his father, but was removed from the military, and Nonindicted 2, who was well aware of the defendant, was required to settle the title in the name of the defendant in the Daejeon Regional Security Office around July 1971. Thus, even if the defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land in the same manner as the criminal act at the time of original adjudication, it cannot be deemed that he stated false facts in the notarial deed as a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and even if he had the registry kept, it cannot be deemed that he exercised the notarial deed that was not recorded in the notarial deed. Accordingly, even if the part of the facts charged in this case was not proven in the notarial deed, it cannot be viewed as being inconsistent with the facts established in the notarial deed, and thus, it cannot be viewed as being inconsistent with the judgment of the court below that the registration of title transfer was made in the notarial deed under the 20th Civil Procedure Act (see this case’s 16th Civil Procedure Act).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)