The nature of the crime of concealment of documents in a case where the document of another person is used as a means of securing evidentiary materials to find out that the document was committed against his will and is kept in the wester.

The act of the non-indicted to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future by the procedure prescribed in the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate with respect to the part of the land which the defendant believed to own as a clan he belongs to constitutes a tort, and the act of carrying out documents related to the registration of ownership transfer presented by that person as a means of securing evidentiary materials to prevent such act and keeping them in the custody of that person is not a crime of document concealment.

Article 366 of the Criminal Act

【Court Decision 79Do1266 delivered on August 28, 1979 (Public Notice No. 366(2) of the Criminal Act, No. 620, 1236)

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 201Na435 delivered on July 1, 201

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant although the defendant did not commit the crime of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant consistently denies the criminal intent of concealing the document of this case by the police until this Court had been established. In full view of each statement statement made by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 of the lower court witness, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 of the process of handling affairs by judicial police officers, and each statement made by Nonindicted 1 and 2 of the record of statement, the Defendant’s possession of 38,867 square meters of land, including woodland (number omitted) and 31,339 square meters of land and 38,867 square meters of land, which are originally managed by the Defendant. Nonindicted 1, the complainant of this case, purchased 1/4 of all rights from the above land in around 1946 from the deceased Non-Indicted 5, which was the owner of ownership, and then purchased 4 shares from the above land and claimed that the Defendant actually owned the above land and received the ownership transfer registration from the non-Indicted 2 of this case’s new document to recognize that the Defendant had completed the ownership transfer registration among the above land by 200 documents under the Act on Special Measures for Ownership, etc.

On the other hand, considering the circumstances leading up to Nonindicted Party 1’s request for the above transfer registration of ownership from Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 1, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, who tried to separate Nonindicted Party 1’s above-mentioned documents from Nonindicted Party 1’s possession of the above documents, and thus, in full view of Nonindicted Party 6’s statement, protocol of examination of the Defendant in the preparation of administrative affairs, and a certified copy of the register (number 21) bound by the record, the above fact that Nonindicted Party 1 attempted to separate the above documents from that of Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 3, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, who tried to keep the above documents, were to be deemed to have been under titled in the name of Nonindicted Party 3’s original possession of the above documents, and thus, Nonindicted Party 2, who tried to receive the above documents on April 30, 1983, 208.

If so, the court below reverses the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and decides again as follows, since the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant, who is the complainant of this case, purchased 1/4 of the entire rights from the land 38,867 square meters, including the 31,339 square meters of forest land, in the name of the defendant's possession (number omitted) in the north-Eup-Myeon located in the name of the defendant, which is managed by the defendant by the non-indicted 1, the defendant, at around 1946, again purchased from the non-indicted 5, the deceased non-indicted 4, who was the purchaser of the above shares, and actually owned it as the heir of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, as to the one fourth portion of the above land, according to the procedure prescribed in the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, etc., and prepared related documents to complete the ownership registration in the future, and found the defendant's house in the North-Eup-Myeon area (number omitted) in the North-Eup-Myeon, the defendant's act of concealing the above documents without his consent.

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

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)