Whether the transferee of the second transfer of real estate constitutes the joint principal offense of breach of trust (affirmative)

If the lessee of a store knows that he/she sells the store to another person, and the lessee of the store, "to sell the store to the lessee first" at the time of the contract for the lease of the store, if the lessee unilaterally determines the purchase price and deposits the special agreement, and in collusion with the lessor, makes a registration of ownership transfer in the name of the lessee, it constitutes a co-principal of the crime of breach of trust.

Articles 30, 33, and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do1095 Decided January 31, 1966

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Su-hee

Chuncheon District Court Decision 81No319 delivered on December 17, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant sold this case to the Hong Feman on March 1, 1978, and he was well aware that the above Hong Feman again sold this case to the non-indicted Hamman on November 1, 1978, and was trying to purchase this case on several occasions, but it did not come into a matter of price, and thus, if he sold this case at the time of this case's lease contract, he unilaterally determined the special agreement that he sold this case to the lessee at the time of this case's lease contract, and deposited the remaining amount after deducting the lease deposit and the payment paid at the beginning of this case's house, and thereby actively participated in the act of breach of trust in collusion with the co-defendant in the judgment of the court below and the judgment of first instance maintained by the court below, we agree with the facts constituting an offense against the defendant, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the theory of breach of trust as to the accomplice or the evidence.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)