An appeal by a prosecutor shall be dismissed.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when Non-Indicted 1 sells 1.509 of land located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the basic property of the school foundation at issue in this case on behalf of the school foundation’s annual household school on November 1, 1963, at KRW 11.509, which is the basic property of the school foundation at issue in this case, to Non-Indicted 2, the court below concluded a sales contract without specifying at all the issue of demolition of the above building on the above land, and then Non-Indicted 2 demanded that the above school foundation’s removal cost should be borne by the school foundation at issue on March 1, 1964, and the above board of directors convened the annual school foundation’s board of directors and decided to reduce the price of the above land to KRW 1,00,000,000 on behalf of the school foundation’s annual household school foundation at issue, and the defendant, as the president of the above school foundation, did not obtain permission from the Minister for Delivery of the reduced price, thereby waivering part of the right to the above paragraph 1 of the Private School Act.

However, if a middle school juristic person intends to sell its basic property, it should obtain permission from the supervisory authority" under Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act means sufficient permission from the supervisory authority for the sale and disposal itself of basic property, and as long as permission is obtained, the problem of sale price is at the discretion of the school juristic person disposing of it, and in this case, even if the foundation reasonably reduces the sale price according to the resolution of the society, such as this case, it does not purport that daily permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should be obtained. In addition, according to the records, with respect to removal of the above building, an oral agreement was made to remove the above land from the seller at the time of the commencement of the sale and purchase of the land and deliver the site, and the subsequent school juristic person did not perform the above removal duty, and the defendant had been exempted from the duty of removal due to bank obligations at the time, etc., and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's act of removal from the sale and purchase price of the building at issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the decision shall be rendered directly by the party members pursuant to Article 396 of the same Act. The facts charged in this case is that the defendant takes office as the chief director of the school foundation's annual household school around March 1963 and took charge of the management of the operation of the school foundation. In managing the above corporation, although the school foundation's basic property is sold, donated, leased, exchanged, offered as security, or at the time of giving up its obligation or giving up its rights, it is subject to the permission of the head of the literature delivery department, the supervisory authority at the early March 1964, 1964, which is the basic property of the above corporation, 11.509 square meters of land 6, Changcheon-dong, Changcheon-dong, Seoul, which is the basic property of the above corporation, and the defendant shall not be released from the above 10th of the original judgment without deducting the above fees from the above 100th of the sales contract.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)