in the case of sale of the article jointly owned by the sole owner, the

Since the sale of waste stone in a mine belonging to co-ownership is not an act of management but an act of disposal stipulated in Article 264 of the Civil Act, it cannot be disposed of without the consent of other co-owners. Therefore, if the above mine is the sole ownership of the same person and the defendant has the right to make a voluntary disposal of the above mine waste, if he sells it to the victim, and receives the money as the down payment, it constitutes a crime of fraud.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

Daejeon District Court (62No458)

Each of the appeals is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal on attorneys Lee Young-young are as stated in the appellate brief of the last two copies subsequent to them.

According to the original adjudication and the records, even if the legal relationship on the yellow mine at issue in this case by various evidence in question is contrary to the assertion by Defendant 2, the court below can recognize the above criminal facts, as stated above, if it is hard to see that the defendant's sole ownership of the defendant and the non-indicted 1 belongs to the co-ownership of the above non-indicted 1, and the defendant et al. conspired with the non-indicted 2 without any consent from the non-indicted 1, and the mine in this case is the sole ownership of the defendant 2, and he is authorized to dispose of the mine closure voluntarily, and it is the non-indicted 2 who is the complainant's right to dispose of the mine closure, and it is not possible to see that the defendant's disposal of the closed stone in this case was acquired by receiving 100,000 won under the name of the contract deposit, and it is difficult to see that the defendant 2's disposal of the closed stone in this case without the consent of the majority of the non-indicted 2, as stated in the above.

In fact, the argument of violation of the precedent is merely a criticism against the legitimate exercise of the power to the fact-finding by the court below from an independent point of view, and it cannot be adopted, and the argument of violation of the Constitution is also based on the facts and legal principles of the Germany, and it is not possible to accept it due to lack of the premise. Therefore, the argument is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 399 and 364(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges’ tenure (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)