Where it is known that another person who purchased the object of the registration of invalidation is deceptiond by a person who has been a victim due to registration of invalidation of the cause, the case held that such purchaser has a duty to notify the fact of invalidation of the cause.

It is reasonable to interpret that the victim who purchased the forest and field where the invalidation of the cause has been registered has a duty to notify the victim who purchased the subject matter and again purchased the subject matter and provided some of the purchase price with the fact of invalidation of the cause.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 67No109 delivered on August 22, 1967

The part of the original judgment against the defendant Goskak among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The appeal by Defendant E-Jin by Defendant E-J is dismissed.

The seventy days, out of the days pending trial after his appeal, shall be included in the principal penalty.

As to ground of appeal 2 by a prosecutor representing the Daegu High Prosecutor's Office

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as Co-defendant 2 purchased the forest land owned by the court below, it is hard to conclude that Co-defendant 2 purchased the forest land in the name of co-defendant 2 by forging a related person and document and illegally registering ownership transfer in the name of co-defendant 2, who is aware of such fact, and Defendant 2 misleads Defendant 2 as co-defendant 2 of this case's ownership transfer registration in the name of the court below. Upon the request of Co-defendant 2 of the court below to complete purchase of the forest land, he concluded a sales contract of KRW 80,000,000 in total, which is 450,000 won to be additionally paid, and then he received KRW 1,070,000 in total by deceiving Co-defendant 2 of this case's receipt of money in the name of the above co-defendant 2 of this case, but he did not know that the above fact was invalid, since Co-defendant 2 did not have any obligation to receive money from the non-party 2 and the seller.

However, if Defendant 2 received money KRW 960,00,00 paid by the Nonparty out of the purchase price, Defendant 2, who knows that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Co-Defendant 2 or in the name of Defendant 2 was null and void, shall not be liable for Co-Defendant 2 to pay KRW 960,000 out of the purchase price if the Nonparty knew that each of the above registration was invalid, so it shall be reasonable for Co-Defendant 2 to interpret that Co-Defendant 2 has a duty to notify the Nonparty of the invalidation of the above registration to the Nonparty who provided KRW 960,000,000. However, Defendant 2 had the opposing opinion, but there is an error of law in the original judgment, and there is no need for further explanation. The part on Defendant 2 in the original judgment should not be reversed.

The summary of Defendant E-J's ground of appeal is that the criminal facts other than the false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed among the criminal facts recognized in the original judgment are serious mistake of facts, but it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in light of the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 390, 397, and 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.