(a) The case holding that the act of taking three times money for the same victim is a substantive concurrent crime;

B. If the mortgagee made a provisional registration on the mortgaged real estate to a third party before the due date for payment, the nature of breach of trust (affirmative)

A. When the defendant acquires money three times from the same victim, the interval of time is at least two months, and even in the method of deception, the defendant first prepared an auction deposit and made a false statement that he/she will repay the subject matter of auction if he/she disposes of the subject matter of auction. The second is only one time, and the second is a false statement that he/she would be able to dispose of the subject matter of auction, and if he/she would be unable to repay the money if he/she would not lend money at the last, he/she would not be able to repay the money if he/she would inevitably be unable to lend the money to the victim. Therefore, each of the above crimes constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.

B. When a property loss is incurred in breach of trust, as well as in the case of causing the risk of property loss, it includes not only a real loss but also a case where a creditor who has received the registration of ownership transfer of real estate for the purpose of collateral security has a duty to restore the registration when the debtor pays his/her debt by the due date. Therefore, if the debtor has made a provisional registration to preserve the right of ownership transfer claim against a third party in violation of his/her duty prior to the due date, if he/she made a provisional registration for the preservation of the right of ownership transfer claim, it would result in the risk of loss equivalent to the value of the security even if the debtor's right of repurchase is not ultimately lost. Thus, even if the debtor fails to repay his/

A. Articles 37 and 347 of the Criminal Act / 355(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 372 of the Civil Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-woo

Daegu District Court Decision 87No1993, 88No663 delivered on May 25, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the financial status of the defendant, the relationship between the defendant and the defendant, and the circumstances and methods of lending money under the name of the auction deposit over three times from the Park Jong-dae, which are admitted by the evidence of the judgment below, the court below is just and persuasive to recognize the facts of the fraud of this case against the defendant by the evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

In the event that a single and continuous criminal conducts the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period of time and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each crime shall be deemed to be an inclusive crime. However, if the single or continuous criminal intent cannot be recognized, each crime shall be established. According to the evidence revealed by the court below, when the defendant in collusion with the defendant in the court below for the purpose of acquiring money three times from ambakakakakakak, the interval between time is at least two months from March 25, 1985 and May 30 of the same year, respectively, and the method of deception shall be at least two months from May 30, 195, respectively, and when preparing an auction deposit, the court below made a false statement that the above real property may be disposed of if more time is imposed, and if the defendant would not be repaid at the last time, it shall not be able to lend money more than twice, so that the court below's decision is justified in finding that there was no error of law in the rules of evidence selection and the difference between the defendant and the actual means of crime.

With respect to the third point:

In the case of the crime of breach of trust, property damage is not only a real damage but also a case where the risk of property damage is caused, and since a creditor who received the registration of ownership transfer of real estate for the purpose of collateral security has a duty to restore the registration to the debtor if the debtor repays his obligation by the due date, if the debtor has made a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer, even if the debtor did not repay his obligation by the due date, the crime of breach of trust does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even though he did not pay his obligation by the due date. As determined by the court below, if the defendant made the registration of ownership transfer of his own real estate for a period of one year to secure his claim against Kim Young-young on November 5, 1982 but made the provisional registration on September 24, 1983 after setting the due date for the first year to secure his claim against such Kim Young-young, even if the above right to repurchase of Kim Young-young does not have to be ultimately lost, the above act of the defendant constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)