Cases of misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act;

If the non-indicted Party A received a distribution of the land and sold it to the defendant before the completion of the redemption, and the defendant was removed from part of the land to the non-indicted Party, and had them live in it, and the defendant again sold the whole land to the non-indicted Party B on April 20, 1967, and the defendant changed the category of the land to the site, changed the category of the land to the non-indicted Party C who was designated by the non-indicted Party C at the same time after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the non-indicted Party C at the same time after the completion of the redemption, the above contract was ratified by the defendant after the completion of the redemption, and there is room to view that the contract between the defendant and the above victims was a condition of suspension of siteization, even if the farmland was distributed before the completion of the redemption, if the contract was made on the condition of suspension of siteization and the completion of the redemption, it is valid even if the land is delivered to the buyer for the purpose of site formation.

B. Even though the defendant purchased farmland to be distributed prior to the completion of repayment and sold part of the farmland to the non-party 11 who was removed, and sold it to the non-party 11 who was residing in the market by building the sales market above, in case where he again sold it to the non-party 11, and made the non-party 11 to complete the repayment in the name of (A) and the land category to be changed to the site, and (a) made the transfer registration under the name of (A) designated by the non-party 1 through the name of (A) at the same time, (a) confirmed the sale contract of the land after the completion of repayment, and if the sale contract between the defendant and the victims set forth the terms of suspension of the siteization and repayment, the defendant was in the position to handle the non-party 11 affairs.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 67No1471 delivered on May 15, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal No. 1

The judgment of the first instance, which maintained the original judgment, is based on evidence, that the land in question was distributed to the non-indicted Kim Jae-chul and was sold to the defendant before the completion of the repayment, and the defendant was used as farmland, and was removed from the non-indicted Kim Jong-Un to 11, as shown in the facts charged, one copy of the land in question was living on the land, and the defendant sold the entire land to the non-indicted Kim Jong-tae at 170,000 won, again in April 20, 1967, and had the person complete the repayment with the above Kim Jae-tae's name on April 20, 1967. At the same time, the land category was changed to the site and the ownership transfer was transferred to the non-indicted Kim Jong-tae, and the defendant was removed from the sale and disposal of the farmland until the completion of repayment, and the defendant was not guilty of the sale and disposal disposition of the farmland in violation of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the act of the defendant was entirely null and void from the above one another person's sale.

However, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to conclude that the above Kim Jae-in ratified the contract for the sale of the land in question to the defendant after the completion of redemption, and that the contract between the defendant and the above victims was the right to suspend the formation of the site. Therefore, even if the farmland was distributed before the completion of redemption, it is valid even if it was delivered to the purchaser for the purpose of building site, if the land was delivered to the purchaser, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that dismissed the appeal without deliberating on these issues, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed with merit.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)