If the registration of transfer of ownership that has defect in the procedure complies with the substantive relationship, the nature of the crime of false entry in the authentic copy

Even if a registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the procedure is made by attaching a certificate prescribed by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of False Contents, if it conforms to the substantive relation of rights, the crime of false entry in the authentic document and the crime of exercising the same shall not be established.

Article 228 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do482 delivered on July 24, 1979 (Gong228 (54), Gong291, Gong616, 12077)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (83Gohap55)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is too uneasy and unfair; and (b) the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 and 2, the court below recognized the fact that the Defendants acquired the land prior to 38 years, and found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the disposition of farmland distribution in the future as to the land was actually used as the site at the time of distribution; and (c) although the Defendants acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed in the future, was effective in accordance with the substantive relations, it cannot be recognized that the Defendants acquired the land prior to the transfer; and even if the disposition is null and void, the distribution disposition of the land cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course solely on the ground that it is a site at the time of distribution, and therefore, even if the disposition is invalid, it is unlawful by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act or the acquisition by prescription.

First of all, considering the various types of conditions indicated in this case as to the assertion of unfair sentencing as to the conviction, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is unreasonable to deem it unreasonable. Therefore, the appeal is groundless.

The following facts are examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. Each of the above lands is divided from 281 square meters prior to the original three North Korean-Eup (1 omitted), and the above 281 square meters prior to that of the deceased non-indicted 1's ownership is constructed on the ground that the above 93 square meters prior to that of the above lands (1 omitted) and the above 175 square meters prior to that of the above land (2 omitted), and the above 194 square meters prior to that of the above land was constructed on the 1953 square meters prior to that of the above land (2 omitted), and the above 194 square meters prior to that of the above 194 square meters prior to that of the above land (200 square meters prior to that of the above land) and the above 194 square meters prior to that of the above land was purchased on the 194 square meters prior to that of the above 194 square meters prior to that of the above land by the non-indicted 1's owner.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of each ownership in the future of the Defendants cannot be deemed as a false registration solely on the ground that the indication of the cause of the registration is not the same as the actual one, and therefore even if the registry was kept, it shall not be deemed that a false recorded notarial deed was exercised. In the same purport, the court below was just in holding that the court below acquitted the Defendants of the entry of the original notarial deed in the facts charged and its exercise, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts, the Farmland Reform Act, or the acquisition of ownership.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Giology (Presiding Judge) Order of Merit