[횡령][집32(2)형,519;공1984.7.1.(731),1045]
The act of selling the land and the act of embezzlement where the owner of the land entrusted with custody by the conciliation division transferred ownership to the defendant at his/her own discretion by the heir;
If the clan entrusted the land owned by the defendant to the Mediation Division (A) and received the land situation in that person's name, and if the father (B) of the defendant, his heir, pretended to register inheritance and trade, and made a registration of transfer of ownership in the future for the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the act of embezzlement of the defendant's clan (B) has already been completed, and otherwise, unless it is recognized that the clan newly entrusted the defendant with the custody of the land in this case by the embezzlement of the above (B), the defendant shall not be deemed to constitute embezzlement of the clan in the event that the defendant sold the above land, regardless of the island of the status of the purchaser or transferor of the stolen property arising from the embezzlement of the above (B).
Article 355 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Daejeon District Court Decision 82No688 delivered on December 8, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case, which was executed by the non-indicted 1, the father of this case from 1921 to 14 March 1981, on the ground that the defendant did not know that the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case was made in the name of the non-indicted 2,98 square meters and four pieces of land (hereinafter referred to as the "the land of this case") of the non-indicted 2,98 square meters, and that the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the deceased non-indicted 2, the deceased non-indicted 1, the deceased non-indicted 2, and the deceased non-indicted 2, the deceased non-indicted 1, the deceased non-indicted 2, who was entrusted with the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case for the reason that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the defendant's father and the non-indicted 3, who was found not to have been entrusted with the ownership transfer ownership of this case.
According to the records, the fact-finding of the court below, except for the part that the defendant believed that the land was the defendant's inherited property without knowing the fact that it was the defendant's own inherited property in selling this land among the above fact-finding of the court below, is justified. It is reasonable to view that the deceased non-indicted 2 had already completed the act of embezzlement of the clan because the deceased non-indicted 2 had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case under the name of the defendant. Unless it is recognized that the defendant has already entrusted the defendant with the new custody of the land, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed embezzlement of the defendant's sale of this case's land, separate from the deceased non-indicted 2's embezzlement or transfer's status, since the defendant's sale of this case's land did not affect the conclusion of the court below's decision and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles of embezzlement, and it cannot be said that the defendant's sale of this case's land was not the defendant's heir prior to the sale of this case's land, but the defendant's sale of this case's land.
Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)