Relationship between false reporting of necessity for proceedings and false entry in notarial deeds

If a person registers another person's house as a house in his own house according to the necessity of procedure due to the relationship with which a building permit has been granted, it is reasonable to not establish a crime of false entry in a notarial deed.

Defendant

Themarium

Busan District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel is that (1) the non-indicted 2 was prepared by a public office or a public official for the purpose of proof on the outside of the house building, which is (3) the preparation and official of the previous house register in Busan is required within the scope of the affairs assigned by the law, and there is no reason to believe that the vehicle falls within the scope of the affairs assigned to the city of Busan, even though the requirements for electrical usage and preparation are met, and it is difficult to say that the vehicle would naturally respond to the affairs of the city of Busan, because it is hard to say that the new house register was executed by the non-indicted 2 for the purpose of using the new house register in the name of the non-indicted 1 and the new house register was carried out by the non-indicted 2 for the purpose of using the new house register in the name of the non-indicted 1 and the new house register was carried out by the non-indicted 2 for the purpose of using the new house register in the name of the non-indicted 2, the role of proof on the rights and obligations of the house register is reduced.

In the court below's decision, considering the witness non-indicted 3 examination records of the defendant's official writing and non-indicted 1's official writing among the witness non-indicted 3 in the court below's trial records, the report on the ownership of the house in the original city does not require the defendant's voluntary report, but the defendant's oral response to the investigation at the site in order to investigate the actual condition of the newly constructed house in Busan City employee's new house, and the defendant requires the defendant to seal and affix the seal to the non-indicted 1's official seal to the above investigation. It is clear whether the above seal was owned by the non-indicted 1's house and the defendant's seal was recognized that the above house was registered as owned by the non-indicted 1's house in the house ledger. In addition, if the person under the building permit of the previous house is non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1's report on the ownership of the house in the name of the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's house is required, and the court below did not err in the judgment as to decide on the defendant's grounds for appeal.

Justices Kim Byung-o (Presiding Justice)