The case holding that the second act of creation does not constitute a crime of embezzlement in the case where the second act of creation does not constitute a crime of embezzlement in the case where the right to collateral security was established against a third party without

The case holding that the act of creation of a collateral security is not a separate crime of embezzlement in the case where the land under title trust was made to a third party without the consent of the injured party, and the crime of embezzlement is established in the case where the registration of establishment of a collateral security was made again to another person, and that the act of disposal of the embezzled goods does not constitute a separate crime of embezzlement (in the case where the process of establishment of a collateral security and cancellation of the collateral security is simply simple in order of time, the act of creation No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, cancellation, establishment No. 3, and cancellation was carried out in order of cancellation No.

Article 355 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 78Do2175 Decided November 28, 1978 (Gong1979, 11624) Supreme Court Decision 92Do299 Decided March 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1185)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 96No1954 delivered on June 21, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another's property embezzleds the property, and the disposal of the property after embezzlement cannot be punished for an act after embezzlement. The embezzlement as a constituent element of embezzlement refers to any act of realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition. Therefore, if a person who possesses another's property commits an objective act that can be perceived from the outside with the intention of changing the possession into the possession for himself/herself, embezzlement for the entire property is established.

Examining the facts duly admitted by the court below and records, it is deemed that there was an act of objectively expressing the intent of unlawful acquisition of the entire land by giving the registration of creation of a mortgage on May 8, 1991, the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000, and KRW 15,000,000, each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,000 with respect to the land of this case, which the defendant was under custody under the custody under the custody of the victim's disease. Thus, the crime of embezzlement against the entire land of this case is already completed. Accordingly, even if the defendant did not recover from the infringement of the victim's ownership by cancelling the existing establishment registration of a mortgage on the whole of the land of this case, it cannot be deemed that the act of embezzlement was completed after the completion of the act of embezzlement of this case, as described in the facts charged in the crime of embezzlement.

In the end, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to embezzlement and act of non-permanent ex post facto as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)