The case recognizing the invalidity of an indication on official duty

If the other person occupies part of the building after the execution of provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the building, it would be the effect of the indication of the provisional disposition that the owner has executed the provisional disposition.

Article 140 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 71No1863 delivered on May 26, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

In comparison with the evidence in the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, the building removed by the defendant is owned by the defendant's wife, and it can be acknowledged that the non-indicted owner of the same non-indicted as the non-indicted owner whose ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-indicted in this order due to debt relations has harmed the utility of the building by destroying one half of the remaining parts and damaging its utility, and there is no ground for appeal for misconception of facts in this case where the suspension of execution was sentenced for two years in August of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant. Therefore, this case's building is owned by the defendant in the name of the defendant and is registered only to the non-indicted's wife, and it is not a removal of the remaining parts.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

With respect to the building of this case, the provisional disposition that was executed on June 30, 1969 by the original copy of the decision of provisional disposition in the first instance maintained by the court below, and the respondent of the defendant et al. shall not take possession, relocation, or any other disposition of the building of this case, and notified the defendant of this purport. The defendant given a notice to that effect to the non-indicted 2, who was occupied by the non-indicted 1 at the time of the execution of provisional disposition in May 15, 1970, lent it to the non-indicted 2, which affected the utility of indication of the provisional disposition in the execution of provisional disposition in the execution of the execution by the agent of the office of the non-indicted 2.

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

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri