(a) Embezzlement and ex post facto act not punishable;

(b) A custodian of unregistered real estate in embezzlement;

C. The meaning of embezzlement in embezzlement

D. Whether the act of a person entrusted with the management of an unregistered building and embezzled the building under his/her own name by registering its preservation under his/her own name, and then again registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage constitutes an act ex post facto ex post facto (affirmative)

A. The crime of embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another’s property embezzleds the property. On the other hand, disposing of the property after the embezzlement cannot be punished as an act ex post facto ex post facto.

B. In principle, the custody of real estate is recognized for the nominal owner on the registry, but it can be said that the person who actually manages and controls another person's real estate under the delegation by the owner, even though not the nominal owner on the registry, is the custodian of real estate. For unregistered buildings, the person who actually manages and controls real estate can be deemed the custodian in accordance with the consignment relationship.

C. Embezzlement as a constituent element of embezzlement refers to any act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. Since an actor in embezzlement has already occupied another's property, if he/she wishes to change his/her possession into his/her own possession, it can be said that he/she had the intention of acquisition. However, a mere internal deliberation alone cannot be deemed to have committed embezzlement, and there is an objective act that can be perceived from the outside, if there is an objective act that can be perceived by the intention of acquisition.

D. The act of a person entrusted with the management of an unregistered building to register the preservation of the building in his/her own name or to complete the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage at the same time constitutes embezzlement by objectively expressing the intent of unlawful acquisition, and constitutes embezzlement, and the act of registering the preservation of the building in his/her own name has already been completed at the time of the registration of the preservation of the building without the consent of the victim. Thus, the act of registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage after the completion of the embezzlement is an act ex post facto ex post facto, which does not involve

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Do2175 delivered on November 28, 1978 (Gong1979,1624) (Gong1607 delivered on February 10, 198), Supreme Court Decision 86Do1220 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong1990,297), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1911 delivered on March 23, 1990 (Gong190,1010), Supreme Court Decision 4286Do75 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1521), Supreme Court Decision 82Do10 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1521), Supreme Court Decision 9Do2989 delivered on September 28, 1989 (Gong1989, May 29, 195)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 92No697 delivered on October 30, 1992

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

Before determining the grounds of appeal, the Health Institute ex officio

1. According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant had a registered official, who is unaware of of the fact, enter each of the false facts in the register of the above building and the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the foundation of the building which stated that the above building is owned by the defendant, while residing under delegation of the management of the unregistered building in this case owned by the victim. On March 6, 1991, the defendant had a registered official, who is not aware of the fact, enter each of the false facts in the register of the above building, by making the registration official keep the register of the building and the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the foundation of the non-registered building in the above register of the non-registered building. At that time, on July 23, 191 of the same year, the defendant embezzled one building of the above building with the above non-registered building, and had a public official, upon cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the foundation, make the registration of the establishment of the foundation of the right to collateral security, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of 10,0000,00 won.

2. However, embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another's property embezzleds the property. Once embezzlement takes place, disposal of the property cannot be punished as an act ex post facto act after embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 78Do2175, Nov. 28, 1978).

3. In principle, the custody of real estate is recognized for a nominal owner on the registry, but it is not a nominal owner on the registry but a person who actually manages and controls another's real estate under the delegation by the owner. As to the unregistered building, such as this case, a person who actually controls real estate can be deemed a custodian by the consignment relationship. Even based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant is living in the place upon delegation of the management of the unregistered building of this case, and there is no doubt that the defendant was in the custodian of the building of this case.

4. The act of embezzlement as a constituent element of embezzlement refers to any act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. Since the actor in embezzlement already occupies another's property, if he/she wishes to change the possession into his/her own possession, it can be said that he/she had the intention of acquisition. However, the mere internal intent cannot be deemed to have existed, and the intention of acquisition is established when there is an objective act that can be perceived from the outside.

Therefore, if the defendant, who is entrusted with the management of a unregistered building as in the instant case, voluntarily registers the preservation of the building in his name or simultaneously completes the registration of the establishment of a neighboring building to another person, this constitutes embezzlement as an act of objectively expressing the intention of unlawful acquisition. As such, the crime of embezzlement has already been completed when the defendant registers the preservation of the building in his name without the consent of the victim. As such, the act of registering the establishment of a neighboring building to another person after the completion of the embezzlement does not constitute a separate crime of embezzlement as an act of ex post facto gift, which does not entail any infringement of the new legal interests of the victim.

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the act of ex post facto act in embezzlement. Thus, the judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)