Whether the change of name in the house tax ledger constitutes a crime of breach of trust in the transfer of unregistered house house two times.

Even if the defendant sold unregistered houses to "A" and agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer for them, but again paid in lieu of "B" and changed the name to "B" in the name of the same person on the house tax ledger, the house tax ledger does not constitute a crime of breach of trust on the ground that it cannot be deemed that "B" provided any property interest or suffered property damage on "A", since the document clearly indicating the location, type, structure, owner, etc. of the building by registering the owner, etc. is not for the purpose of disclosing the right relationship for the house.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Government's branch court of the Seoul District Criminal Court of the first instance (76 Gohap190)

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the decision of the court below is unreasonable because the decision of the court below is too unreasonable, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: First, as to the violation of trust by the court below which acquitted the defendant, the court below should sell the house owned by the defendant to the victim non-indicted 1 in 150,000 won ad 2.50,000 won ad 2,000 won ad 2, and the court below recognized all the charges that change the name on the house tax ledger to the non-indicted 2, while recognizing that the name on the above house tax ledger was changed to the non-indicted 1, it does not infringe on the right of the non-indicted 1, and thus, the non-indicted 1, such as this case, cannot be registered as an unauthorized building, and therefore, the acquisition or loss of right to the building cannot be confirmed by the entry in the house tax ledger, and even if general transactions are not in favor of the victim's right to transfer it to the non-indicted 2, it can be found the defendant guilty under the so-indicted name under civil law.

Therefore, first of all, the first point of the appeal by the prosecutor is that the entry in the house tax ledger as a document kept under the convenience of the administrative agency that made clear the present state of the house by registering the location, type, structure, owner, etc. of the original house tax ledger is for the purpose of indicating the facts about the house, and it is not for disclosing the relation of rights to the house as in the register, but for the purpose of disclosing the relation of rights to the house, and it cannot be said that the other person has acquired the ownership of the house or is presumed to be the owner, nor any property interest is attributed to the non-indicted 1 who is given any right to the other person. Thus, even if the defendant sells the unregistered house to the non-indicted 2 who is the victim and agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer, but has changed the above house in the name of the person in the name of the non-indicted 1 on the house tax ledger, it cannot be said that the court below has made any property interest to the non-indicted 2, and therefore, it cannot be accepted the defendant's motive and reason for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)