횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, each of the land owned by the victim B clan (hereinafter “victim’s clan”) and each of the land owned by the victim B (hereinafter “victim’s clan”) and registered each of the instant land in the name of the Defendant in the victim’s name among the victim’s species. However, the lower court determined otherwise that the Defendant and the victim’s clan could not be recognized as a trust in the name of the Defendant, and found the Defendant not guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. The lower court is difficult to recognize the trust relationship between the Defendant and the victim with the family of the same clan on the following grounds.
On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.
1) Each of the instant lands was assessed under the name of the original network I, but the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the Defendant, AM, N, and AG around June 1981 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197).
Therefore, in order to recognize the fact that each land of this case is owned by the injured clans, it should be recognized that each land of this case was owned by the injured clans, and that each land of this case was trusted to the deceased under the name of the deceased clans at the time of the circumstance, or that each land of this case was agreed to be owned
(A) First of all, we examine whether the victim's species were the victim's land of this case under trust in the name of the deceased I and received assessment.
With respect to the reasons why the victim's species possess each of the lands of this case, the complaint submitted by the victim's species stated that "HIB purchased each of the lands of this case" was stated to the effect that "J sold the lands of this case to the original owner of this land for a long time," and that J, in the investigation agency, has sold the lands of this land to the original owner of this land and changed the number of non-heads because his father has long changed to the land of this case.
I. ...