[1] The nature of the crime of false entry in the original notarial deed in a case where there is a defect that is invalid even if there is no matter mentioned in the original notarial deed or any external existence (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in case where the purchaser of a real estate had no agreement between the seller and the seller on the transfer of real estate, without representation on the application for the transfer of ownership, only keep documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership without representation on the application for the transfer of ownership, and had a certified judicial scrivener induce the buyer to apply for the transfer

[1] The crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime, the legal interest of which is protected by the law to guarantee the public credit of an official document whose special credibility is recognized, and is established by filing a false report contrary to the truth with respect to a public official, and having the public official enter or register false facts inconsistent with the substantive relations, such as the original copy of a notarial deed or the same electronic record. Thus, if there is no matter stated in the original copy of a notarial deed, or if there

[2] The case holding that the crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed is established on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership constitutes a false entry on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership constitutes a false entry on the ground that it is not merely a defect in the procedure for applying for registration of transfer of ownership, and it constitutes a false entry on the ground that it constitutes a false entry on the ground that the registration of invalidation of cause for registration of transfer of ownership constitutes an invalid entry on the part of registration of transfer of ownership

[1] Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do638 delivered on July 25, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4910 Delivered on August 25, 2005

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005No352 delivered on November 18, 2005

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

1. According to the evidence in its holding, even if Nonindicted Party 1 sold the instant real estate to the Defendant on November 5, 2002, determined the balance of the purchase price after deducting the Defendant’s obligation to be assumed from the balance of the purchase price, etc., and then, it was difficult for him to obtain an application for registration from a certified judicial scrivener office under the condition that he would receive any balance from the Defendant’s office, and made it difficult for him to obtain an additional payment of the balance of the purchase price, the lower court determined that the Defendant would not obtain an additional payment of the balance of the purchase price to Nonindicted Party 1 for the registration of the instant real estate from the certified judicial scrivener office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s non-indicted 2 to prepare an attorney’s letter of request for registration and deliver all documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate’s office’s office’s non-indicted 1’s office’s office’s non-indicted 200 billion won to pay the balance of the ownership transfer price.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The crime of false entry in the original of a notarial deed under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime, the legal interest of which is protecting the public credibility of which is recognized, and is established by having a public official enter or register false facts inconsistent with the substantive relations, such as the original of a notarial deed or the same electronic record, by filing a false report contrary to the truth. Thus, if there is no matter stated in the original of a notarial deed or there is a defect in appearance, if there is any defect in the invalidation, such entry constitutes a notarial deed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do638, Jul. 25, 2003; 2005Do4910, Aug. 25, 2005, etc.).

The following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, Nonindicted Party 1 agreed to deliver documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer at the same time with the Defendant at the time of the instant sales contract. On November 5, 2002, Nonindicted Party 1 deposited the balance into Nonindicted Party 1’s deposit account and agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer to Nonindicted Party 1; Nonindicted Party 1, an employee of the certified judicial scrivener’s office on November 5, 2002, issued documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer to Nonindicted Party 3 to request the registration of ownership transfer; and thus, Nonindicted Party 1 would have to obtain separate consent from the Defendant to file an application for the registration of ownership transfer by allowing the buyer to file an application for the registration of ownership transfer only after receiving documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer from him/her; the sales price actually paid to Nonindicted Party 1 to him/her to him/her is merely KRW 35 million and the seller would not be deemed to have acquired obligations in lieu of the payment of intermediate money, but it would have been difficult for the buyer to take over the ownership transfer registration of real property under his/her name.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there was a real right agreement between the non-indicted 1 and the defendant for the transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case, or that the non-indicted 1 entrusted the application for the transfer of ownership to a certified judicial scrivener (name omitted), and determined that the application for the transfer of ownership of this case is false report or that the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant cannot be deemed as false report. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed, and the ground for

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)