In cases where a title trustee of real estate filed an application for cancellation of the registration after the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed in the name of the truster Gap in the future without the consent of the truster Gap, and at the same time, the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Eul has been completed in succession, whether the act of completing the registration of ownership transfer under

Where a title trustee of real estate filed an application for cancellation of a collateral security registration under the name of B and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B are filed upon the application for cancellation of a collateral security registration without the consent of the truster, and at the same time, the registration of cancellation of a collateral security registration under the name of B and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B were filed, embezzlement was completed by objectively following the intent of illegal acquisition of the relevant real estate at the time of the establishment registration of a collateral security under the name of B and the cancellation registration of a collateral security under the name of B was completed at the same time before the registration of ownership transfer under the name was completed, and even if the cancellation registration of a collateral security under the name of B was completed at the same time before the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B was completed, the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B is merely the preparation for the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B and thus, the act

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do299 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1185) Supreme Court Decision 96Do1755 delivered on November 29, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 264) Supreme Court Decision 97Do3282 delivered on February 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 948Sang, 99Do5 delivered on April 27, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1114)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 99No1811 delivered on December 23, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and the records, the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 have been entrusted by the victims with one third of each of the forest of this case and keep them. The defendant in collusion with the non-indicted 1 on December 3, 1998 in order to secure the obligation against the non-indicted 1 corporation among the forest of this case on December 3, 1998, registered the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 150,000,000 won under the name of Korea Chemical Co., Ltd. without the consent of the victims and filed an application for the registration of cancellation on January 13, 1999 at the same time, and filed an application for the registration of cancellation, and filed for the registration of cancellation on January 13, 199 without the consent of the victims.

If the facts are as above, at the time when the defendant et al. completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring chemical name in the name of the Korea Chemical Co., Ltd. with respect to the portion of Kim Jong-dong in the forest of this case, the crime of embezzlement against the entire portion of the forest of this case was completed by objectively smelling his intent to acquire illegal gains from all shares out of the forest of this case, and even if the cancellation registration of the right to collateral security in the name of the Korea Chemical Co., Ltd. applied simultaneously before the registration of establishment of ownership was completed, the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Korea Chemical Co., Ltd. is merely an act of preparation for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the stuffing chemical name, and thus, the act of completing the registration of establishment of ownership transfer conducted under the name of the victims without restoring the infringement of the rights of the victims constitutes an act of disposal of the embezzlement and thus,

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposal act in embezzlement and the act of non-permanent ex post facto action.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)