The crime of embezzlement is established if a person who acquired the title trust of a clan's real estate and acquired the ownership, disposes of it at his/her own discretion (a dissenting opinion).

The crime of embezzlement is established if a person who registered the ownership of a clan under title trust disposes of the real estate at his/her own discretion.

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do1434 Delivered on August 31, 1970

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Suwon support in the first instance court, Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 69No1578 delivered on March 18, 1971

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The Seoul District Prosecutors' Office's grounds of appeal are examined.

The issue is that the judgment below is contrary to Article 18 of the Court Organization Act, and its purport is to argue that the charges of this case against the Defendants constitute embezzlement, and the following is decided. The court below decided as follows. The revised charges of this case (the defendant 2 is a punishment punishment between the defendant 1 and the Gyeonggi-do (the tax lot number omitted), forest land 1,960 square meters are registered in the name of the defendant 1, and embezzlement of them on January 12, 1968, 354 No. 313,60 won in this case from the defendant 2 to the non-indicted 3 in this case and embezzled them with the proceeds of sale of 313,60 won in this case to the non-indicted 3's agent, and the defendant's act of embezzlement cannot be viewed as embezzlement of others' property, and the defendant's act of embezzlement is not guilty. However, if the remaining land in this case is owned by the non-indicted 1, the court below's judgment below is reversed and remanded to the non-indicted 14, this case.

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court judge, the Dong Kim Dong-dong, Dong Hong-dong, Dong Hong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Dong-dong shall be as follows.

As indicated in the facts charged by the court below at the time of the change in indictment, even if the original land was owned by Non-Indicted 1 in trust with Defendant 1 and the registration for preservation of ownership has been completed in its name, so long as the registration has been completed, the land was owned by Defendant 1 not only in external relations but also in internal relations (the Civil Code recognizes ownership without registration only in the case provided for in Article 187) under the current Civil Act. Thus, if Defendant 1, who is the above registrar, conspired with Defendant 2 and sold the land to Non-Indicted 3 in collusion with Defendant 2’s agent, he cannot be deemed as constituting the crime of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, it cannot be viewed that it constitutes an act of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act. (whether the sale by the above defendants constitutes a crime of breach of trust or not is a separate issue).

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong and Kim Jong-dong Do-Jak Park, Kim Jong-won, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young