Even if the farmland acquired by the farmer and the non-farmer through joint investment is disposed of independently by the farmer, it does not constitute a breach of trust against the non-farmer.

Even if a farmer and a non-farmer jointly invested in farmland and acquired the farmland, a non-farmer cannot be a co-owner of the farmland, and as long as only a farmer was allocated farmland under the Farmland Reform Act and registered the farmland, it cannot be confirmed that a farmer was entrusted with the management of the farmland by a non-farmer who is not entitled to acquire the ownership of the farmland. Therefore, even if a farmer disposed of the farmland independently, even if the farmer disposed of the farmland, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust against a non-farmer.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No1634 delivered on August 26, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office are examined.

In light of the gist of the facts charged by the prosecutor, the defendant sold 48 square meters in this case to Nonindicted 3 and incurred considerable damage to the co-owners of this case on the premise that the defendant had a good manager’s duty of care for common interest because he purchased the right to cultivate 1828 square meters in this case and the right to tobacco with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 and the defendant’s three co-owners and managed them by delegation from the above two persons. Thus, the defendant suffered considerable damage to the above co-owners by selling 48 square meters in this case to Nonindicted 3 and performing the registration of transfer. However, farmland can not be acquired by a person who is not a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, it can not be jointly owned by a legal farmer and non-farmer. Even if the defendant made a joint investment with the Defendant, Non-Indicted 1 and 2, the co-owner of this case may not be considered to be a co-owner of this farmland, and as long as only the defendant, who is a farmer, received the registration of farmland distribution from the non-indicted 2 under the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the crime of breach of trust as to the disposition of farmland in this case under the premise that the defendant had a duty to perform the above delegation affairs, is not recognized that the defendant was delegated to the management of the farmland in this case by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, and therefore, it cannot be said that the crime of breach of trust is established under the premise that the defendant had a duty to perform the above delegation affairs. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the judgment that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the crime of breach of trust as to the above two persons

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court