Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-dae (Court of Prosecution) and Han Jong-hun (Court of Public Trial)

Attorney Cha Jong-soo

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2, a certified judicial scrivener, to perform the registration of ownership transfer for the father-gun (number omitted), 2232 square meters, and two parcels, which are owned by the Nonindicted Party, who is a punishment. In the process of filing an application for the registration of ownership transfer, the Defendants recruited Defendant 1 to prepare a document of confirmation signed and sealed Defendant 1 on behalf of the Nonindicted Party, instead of the Nonindicted Party, in order to verify whether the seller is the person liable for registration, if the seller does not possess the certificate of registration.

1. The crime committed on November 3, 2008;

On November 3, 2008, the Defendants continued to file an application for provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the said real estate at the office of the second certified judicial scrivener office located in the Bupyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendants, without being obliged to file an application for provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the confirmation document, and submitted the confirmation document at the registry office of the Jeonan District District Court located in the Seoan-gun, Jeonan District Court to submit it along with the application for provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer at the time of the filing of the application for provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the said parcel.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the performance of duties by the public official in charge of the subordinate registry office, which is a registrar.

2. The crime committed on August 6, 2009

On August 6, 2009, the Defendants filed an application for the ownership transfer registration of the above land at the place specified in the above paragraph (1) and completed the ownership transfer registration under Defendant 1’s name with respect to the above parcel by submitting the above confirmation document at the Jeonan District Court registry office located in Seoan-gun-gun, along with the application for ownership transfer registration at the Jeonan District Court.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the performance of duties by the public official in charge of the subordinate registry office, which is a registrar.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Complaint;

1. Each confirmation document (26 pages, 46 pages, 69 pages of investigation records);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Article 137 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means, Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants’ act indicated in the facts charged does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means in itself. Moreover, since the Defendants confirmed the transfer of each of the instant registrations by telephone from the Nonindicted Party, the seller, the seller by telephone, each of the instant registrations is registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and the specific and realistic execution of official duties is not hindered, the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceptive means is not established.

2. Determination

A. Relevant regulations and legal principles

1) The former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 8922, Mar. 21, 2008)

Article 49 (Case of Destruction or Loss of Certificate for Completion of Registration)

(1) Where the certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of the person liable for registration, or notification to the effect that the completion of registration is made under Article 68, is destroyed or lost, the person liable for registration or his legal representative shall attend the registry office: Provided, That if an entrusted representative (limited to a lawyer or certified judicial scrivener) appends to the application form two copies of document confirming that he is entrusted by the person liable for registration or his legal representative on the application form, or one copy of document verifying that he is entrusted by the person liable for registration, among the applications (where an application is made by an

(2) In cases falling under the main sentence of paragraph (1), a registrar shall verify whether he/she is the person in question by means of resident registration certificates, passports or other certificates as determined by the Supreme Court Regulations, prepare a protocol accompanied by a copy

(3) Paragraph (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis where an agent by delegation prepares a document for confirmation under the proviso to paragraph (1).

2) Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

Article 25 (Confirmation of Delegator)

Where a certified judicial scrivener has received delegation of a case, he/she shall confirm that the mandator is the principal or his/her agent by submitting resident registration certificates, certificates of seal impression, etc. or other certificates prepared pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, or by other similar reliable methods, and shall record the confirmation methods and

3) According to the purport of Article 49 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 8922, Mar. 21, 2008) and Article 25 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, in cases of loss of a certificate of completion of registration, the confirmation of identity under Article 49 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which a certified judicial scrivener and an attorney-at-law (hereinafter “certified judicial scrivener, etc.”) should, in principle, be conducted on behalf of a registrar. Thus, a certified judicial scrivener, etc. is obligated to verify the identity of a person who delegates an application for registration and a person who is responsible for registration on the registry, with due care required in the course of performing his/her duties, unless any special circumstance is found to suspect that a mandator is the same person. A certified judicial scrivener, etc. is obligated to verify his/her identity only with the certificate, if it is not found that there is a special reason to suspect that the mandator is the same person or a person responsible for registration on the registry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da42955, Jun.

4) In determining whether to accept a request from the other party only when a certain qualification requirement is satisfied upon receipt of the request, the relevant qualification requirements, etc. shall be examined and determined on the premise that the reasons stated in the request may not be inconsistent with the facts. Thus, in a case where the worker in charge of the case does not sufficiently confirm the facts and accepts a false ground for appeal or explanatory materials submitted by the applicant, this is due to insufficient examination and does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means. However, in a case where the applicant submits a false assertion to the worker in charge of the affairs with false explanatory materials corresponding thereto, and the applicant submits a false explanatory materials corresponding thereto, the person in charge of the decision on whether to accept the request, as prescribed by the relevant provisions, has sufficiently examined the existence of the requirements, but the ground for application and explanatory materials were not sufficient, but caused by fraudulent act of the applicant, and thus, the crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 208Do11862, Feb. 26, 2009>

B. Determination

In light of the relevant provisions and legal principles, Defendant 2, a certified judicial scrivener, in collusion with Defendant 1, who is not the owner of real estate stated in the facts of crime of this case (referring to each registration recorded in the facts of crime) and affixed Defendant 1, instead of the non-indicted 1, as the owner of real estate indicated in each confirmation document necessary for the application for each registration of this case. Defendant 2, a certified judicial scrivener, prepared each confirmation document stating the false fact that the non-indicted 2 confirmed the above non-indicted 1, and Defendant 2, a certified judicial scrivener, submitted documents related to the transfer of registration including the above confirmation document to the public official belonging to the registry office of the non-indicted 2, who is responsible for the affairs of this case, and submitted each registration of this case to the public official belonging to the registry office of the non-indicted 2, who is responsible for the registration office of this case. Thus, even if each of the above confirmation documents prepared by Defendant 2, the public official belonging to each of the above non-indicted 2, who is responsible for registration, could not have any authority to examine each of the above documents.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is without merit.

Considering the fact that the Defendants appears to have the reason for taking into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime, there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine by Defendant 1, Defendant 2 is the primary offender, and each of the registrations of this case by the instant crime are registrations consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the punishment as set forth in the summary order shall be determined by reducing part of the fine amount prescribed in the summary order.

Judges promotion of transmission