[절도ㆍ예배방해ㆍ폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반ㆍ폭행][집32(3)형,921;공1984.10.15.(738),1583]
In the case of church divisions, the nature of larceny for the church properties taken by a specific frequency;
With respect to a church which is a arche group, the properties shall belong to the collective ownership of the members of the church unless there are special circumstances, and in case where one church is divided into two or more different churches, the disposal of the properties shall be based upon the generally approved provisions, or in case where there are no such provisions, the properties shall belong to the whole of the members of the church at the time of the division, and in case where they are committed under the recognition that the possession of the other members of the church properties is excluded without going through such procedures and they are moved under the control of only the church, they shall constitute larceny.
Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da2478 Delivered on February 9, 1971, 80Da2045,2046 Delivered on December 9, 1980
Defendant 1 and two others
Defendants
Jeonju District Court Decision 82No693,83No461 delivered on October 12, 1983
All appeals are dismissed.
1. Judgment on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal
In the case of a church which is an association of Germany, the church's annual report, donation money, and other properties derived from the church shall belong to the collective ownership of the members of the church unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045, 2046 delivered on December 9, 1980), and in the case where one church is divided into two or more different churches, the disposal of the properties shall be based upon the church head, the rules of the church, and the general rules, if there are other provisions, or if there is no such provisions, the properties shall be reverted according to the total of the members of the church at the time of the division (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2478 delivered on February 9, 197), and if it is recognized that the above procedures are excluded from the possession of other members of the church properties and move under the control of only one member of the church, it shall be composed of larceny, and the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of larceny and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the above defendant.
2. Determination on Defendant 2 and 3’s grounds of appeal
In full view of the trial evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the above defendants committed the crime of assault as stated in its judgment, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.
3. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeals are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)