Punishment for a crime where stolen original timber has been purchased from a forest;

Even if the relevant authorities deceptiond the originals that were legally produced, and purchased them by a negotiated contract, it is recognized as a person who has the authority to file a lawsuit against the Forestry Act, the crime of fraud does not constitute a separate crime of fraud as a single act after the death of the forest, which is a criminal in the state.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Article 93 of the Forestry Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Chuncheon District Court (73 High Court Decision 95,95,98,100,116,120 Joint Judgment)

Supreme Court Decision 74Do2441 Delivered on October 22, 1974

Each part of the judgment of the court below against each of the defendants 1 and 2 and the guilty part of the defendant 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years, by imprisonment for two years and by imprisonment for five years.

From among detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 165 days for Defendant 1, 160 days for Defendant 2, and 95 days for Defendant 3 shall be included in the original sentence, respectively.

Defendant 1 and 2 of the facts charged in conspiracy

(1) On December 12, 1972, by deceiving Non-Indicted 1 of the Jung Young-gu Forest Secretary, and by deceiving the market price of KRW 15,677,795 with 2,680.

(2) On July 26, 1973, by deceiving Nonindicted 1 on July 26, 1973, by deceiving him, and by deceiving him 24,314,435 won at the market price; and Defendant 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 on January 26, 1973, by deceiving him Nonindicted 1 on January 26, 1973, and by deceiving him 93 of the KRW 6,162,30 at the market price (2) by deceiving Nonindicted 1 on July 31, 1973, by deceiving him 21,218,090 won at the market price, each of them was acquitted.

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel, and the summary of the Reasons for Appeal No. 6 are determined to the extent of supplement to the grounds for appeal that were submitted within the period for submitting the Reasons for Appeal, and the defendant was not guilty of the defendant's possession of his own right to cut off and cut off his own land within the boundary of the period for submitting the Reasons for Appeal No. 1 (the Reasons for Appeal No. 2). The court below found the defendant's right to cut and cut off his own land within the scope of the period for submitting the Reasons for Appeal No. 6 (the Reasons for Appeal No. 1 to the extent of supplement to the period for submitting the Grounds for Appeal No. 2) and that he was found guilty of the defendant's possession of his own right to cut and cut off his own land within the scope of the period for submitting the Grounds for Appeal No. 6 (the Grounds for Appeal No. 2). The court below found the defendant's right to cut and cut off his own land within the scope of the period for submitting the Grounds for Appeal No. 2 to the non-indicted 5.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 3 and his defense counsel Kim Jong-ok and the defendant's attorney Kim Jong-ok did not commit each crime of larceny and fraud under paragraph (8) (1) (2) at the original time. However, the defendant was designated as an agent for visual cleaning in the state forest located in the 3th group operation area of the 3rd group of the Army, which was located in the area of the 12th group of the 3rd group of the Army, from the non-indicted 2, who was transferred the right to forest proxy in the Dong area permitted by the above military authorities through the non-indicted 3, who was transferred the right to forest proxy in the above area to the non-indicted 7, who was dispatched through the above military authorities, and was dispatched in the above area, with several equipment and cut down the 10th group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 3rd group of the 3rd group of the 3rd group of the 3rd group of the 2nd group of the 3rd group of the 3rd group of the 3rd.

The gist of the first ground for appeal by the prosecutor is that the original part, which was seized as the evidence Nos. 43 and 44 of 1973 pressure, 1973, 944-2, and the original part of 1,468.85 meters from the original part of the defendant's office, does not belong to a person other than the defendant and should be confiscated as necessary. However, the court below did not confiscate it, and the judgment below erred in violation of law since it did not confiscate it, and the second ground for appeal against the defendant and the second ground for appeal against the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 (as to the defendant 3, the court below dismissed the judgment of the court below against the defendant as the first ground for appeal, but the prosecutor did not appeal against the same part and the prosecutor did not appeal against the same part, and thus, the judgment of acquittal becomes final and conclusive.

First, among the grounds of appeal by the defendants, etc. and their defense counsel, we examine the arguments of violation of the rules of evidence concerning the theft of the defendant, etc., or of mistake of facts. In full view of all the evidence cited by the court below to acknowledge each crime of this case by the defendant, etc. through legitimate evidence investigation, and the witness of the trial prior to remand, the witness of the trial prior to remand, the witness of the trial prior to remand, and the on-site inspection conducted by the court prior to remand, the defendants cannot be accepted as follows: the defendants knew that each area of the cut timber was not permitted by the military authorities, but the defendants knew that the defendant was not allowed by the military authorities to take the right to cut timber, as they knew that the defendants had been allowed by the military authorities, they could be sufficient to recognize the facts that each crime of this case was committed by deceiving the military branch of the military unit in the same area or by an employee of the middle management branch in the jurisdiction of the

Then, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 conspired with the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 6 (1) of the judgment, and that the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 3 conspired with the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 6 (2) of the judgment with regard to the above part of the above part which they cut, cut, cut, and cut again in a state forest, respectively, as stated in Paragraph 8 (1) (1) of the judgment, and the non-indicted 4, Paragraph 6 (2), and Paragraph 8 (2) of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 1 of the middle part of the court below's judgment were the goods legally produced with the permission of the head of the competent military unit, and caused them to sell them in the name of the non-indicted 2 by a negotiated contract, and applied the punishment of the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

However, as if the defendants were legally produced with regard to the original trees that were stolen, even if the related authorities deceiving the defendants as the right holder of the Forestry Act, and purchased them through a negotiated contract, the forest larceny under Article 93 (1) of the Forestry Act is recognized as the product in the forest, and the nature of the crime is the same as the theft of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a new infringement of the legal interest, and it is reasonable to view that it does not constitute a crime of fraud as a single act of larceny, which is a situation offender, as a single act of larceny.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held the above defendants as a crime of larceny and concurrent crimes in view of the so-called crime of fraud is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles regarding larceny or fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below of the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 3 should not be reversed (the part of the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant 3 is finalized as above).

Therefore, according to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 among the judgment below and the conviction part against Defendant 3 are reversed, and each of the members is decided as follows:

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of Defendant 1, which are acknowledged as a party member, are the same as those of paragraph (1) (1) (2) (3) (5) (6) at the original time, and criminal facts of Defendant 2 are the same as those of paragraph (6) (1) at the original time as those of paragraph (8) at the original time. The criminal facts of Defendant 3 are the same as those of paragraph (8) (1) at the original time. The summary of each of the evidence is that the testimony of Nonindicted 8, 9, 10, and 11 before remand and the result of the on-site inspection before remand is added to the summary of the evidence of each of the forest larceny evidence of Defendant, etc. at the original time, and all of them are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Article 9(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)1 of the Forestry Act, Article 98(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(1)1 of the Act on the offer of bribe in Article 1 of the decision falls under Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 133(1)5 of the same Act, and Article 38(1)2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act. Since the provision of bribe in Article 1(2)1 of the decision of the court below, Article 9(3)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 98(1) of the same Act, Article 30 of the same Act shall be included in the term of imprisonment, Article 57 of the same Act.

The facts charged are that Nonindicted Party 1, 2 conspired with Nonindicted Party 2 to purchase and sell 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 1, 9, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)