The case holding that it is difficult to view that the defendant who received a house pursuant to the above union bylaws has a criminal intent to acquire a house by deceit or other unlawful means, in light of the fact that the rules of the housing association to which he belongs have owned a house within one year from the date of permission for the establishment of the workplace-based housing association, but there was a limitation on the period of

Articles 44(1) and 47 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 4(1) of the Regulations on Mutual Aid for Housing

Defendant

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is that the defendant was supplied with the apartment houses described in the above indictment from the investigative agency to the court, but the defendant was not entitled to subscribe to the housing association for the homeless workers because he owned the house of 54 and 204 to 28 of 690-1, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and therefore, at the office of the Korea Highway Corporation located in Sungnam-si, Manam-si, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, as if he was qualified, the above Korea Highway Corporation established in the 2nd workplace housing association at around May 13, 1989. The defendant was supplied with the apartment houses described in the above indictment by means of deceit and other unlawful means, such as the purchase of the apartment houses of 102 Dong 340-1, Gangdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government National Housing Construction Promotion Act, which were supplied under the 333th National Housing Construction Promotion Act. However, the defendant did not have any ground for disqualification since he was not a homeless household at the time of being supplied with the above house at the time.

Therefore, as shown in the above facts, even if the above regulations were to be applied to the non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent housing association's non-permanent.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant who purchased a house after joining the association as a member pursuant to the above covenant of the association has a criminal intent to acquire a house by deceit or other unlawful means ( further, if the inquiry of the Minister of Construction and Transportation is based on the inquiry of the above Minister, the defendant does not own a house within one year from the date of approval of the business, and does not fall under the above penal provisions), and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts charged.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case are when there is no proof of crime, the defendant shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judge Lee Associate-hoon