B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory on the ground that it is not clear whether the defendant has entered into a contract to exclude or lock a land transaction permit by any

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory on the ground that it is not clear whether the defendant entered into a contract to exclude or temporarily lose land transaction permission by any means.

The appeal against the remaining conviction of the defendant is dismissed.

1. On the conviction of violation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

On August 12, 1991, the lower court found that the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, entered into a sales contract with the seller at KRW 675,00,00 with regard to KRW 21,521,00 on August 12, 1991, for the forest land of KRW 114-1,00 in Busan Northern-dong, Busan-dong, and that the purchaser and Nonindicted Party 1, and the purchaser entered into a sales contract with the Defendant at KRW 675,00,00,00, without obtaining a land transaction permission from the competent authority, and rendered a judgment of conviction by applying Articles 31-2 and 21-3(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572, Aug. 5, 19

However, "the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission" subject to punishment under Article 31-2 of the above Act refers to the act of entering into a contract with the contents of excluding or evading permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act from the beginning, and it does not constitute an act of entering into a contract under the premise that permission is granted (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Do2912, Jan. 21, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 94Do1878, Oct. 7, 1994, etc.).

However, the above facts of the decision of the court below are not clear whether the defendant entered into a contract to exclude or circumvent the permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act by any means, and it is difficult to grasp this point even after examining the evidence cited by the court below. Furthermore, the defendant and non-indicted 1, after purchasing the above land, divided 2,858 square meters into four parts of the above land into four parts, and have already obtained land transaction permission from the head of Busan Northern District Office on December 19, 191, the court below recognized that the land transaction permission was also granted by agreement with the seller. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the part of the above land transaction permission was determined as having been granted under the premise that the land transaction permission was obtained with respect to the above part of the land. In order to obtain the building permission in the court of first instance, the defendant obtained the land transaction permission with priority to securing the ownership of the above part of the divided land, and at that time, it was difficult to obtain the land transaction permission with respect to the whole land.

Therefore, in order to punish the defendant as a violation of the above Article of the Act, the contents of the above sales contract concluded by the defendant, the grounds for obtaining permission for land transaction by dividing only a part of the purchased land, etc. should have been confirmed as to whether the contract was a contract with the contents of excluding or avoiding permission for land transaction from the beginning. However, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the defendant's act without doing so should have erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the above Act, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. As to the remaining convictions (violation of the Building Act and Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act)

Although the Defendant filed an appeal against this part of the case, the Defendant did not state his grounds of appeal against it, and the petition of appeal does not state his grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of conviction regarding the violation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is reversed and remanded to the court below. The appeal on the remaining conviction for which a separate sentence is imposed is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)