The case holding that there is insufficient evidence of conviction on the facts charged that a person liable for tax payment of land was a person holding another person's land and a person holding another person's land cadastre as well as a person holding another person's land cadastre with a false certificate issued to the

The case holding that the current Act on the Aggregate Land Tax does not always accord with the substantive legal relationship, and the current Act stipulates that the person liable for payment of the aggregate land tax shall be the user if the actual owner of the land or the ownership of the land is not clear, and in practice, if the actual farmer of the land or the person claiming the actual owner of the land is unable to confirm the ownership, the taxpayer is changed without any special investigation procedure to confirm the authenticity, and if the public official in charge actually changed the taxpayer of the land to the victim without confirming only the land cadastre, the taxpayer is not immediately the actual owner of the land, and the fact that the taxpayer is registered as the decedent of the victim, and the fact that the victim paid the aggregate land tax before several years, alone, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged on the premise that the defendant obtained a false confirmation document about the land and made a false report to the registration public official by using it.

Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, Articles 228 and 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Law Firm Daejeon, Law Office, Attorney Hun-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant: (a) was a person who had resided in a house constructed on the ground of 936 square meters prior to Sinju-si (detailed address omitted) and owned the above site by inheritance from the deceased non-indicted (the father of the Defendant’s death around May 8, 1989); (b) however, the previous 545 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) located on the 50-1 square meters adjacent to it was originally owned by the deceased Non-indicted Hong Young-young (the death of January 31, 1975) and was originally managed by the deceased Non-indicted 545 square meters (the instant land”). Since the deceased's death was owned by the deceased, it was well known that the deceased, who was the deceased, did not purchase the instant land from the deceased Hong-si, even though it was well known that the deceased did not purchase the instant land from the above deceased Hong-si; (c) the deceased did not use the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate after Seoul around May 8, 1980.

A. On December 30 of the same year, the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 residing in the same Ri were found to have been purchased from the former owner's off-to-face 345 at the office of Hong Young-si, the farmland member of the 1994 Simpo City, "The land of this case was originally red, and the non-indicted 1 was purchased from the above Hong-young, so his father's purchase from the above Hong-young." However, the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3's request was rejected for the reason that it is impossible to verify the facts of the above Hong-young, the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3's request that the above non-indicted 9's purchase of the above land was made from the former owner's off-to-face 1, 345, and the above non-indicted 9's letter of confirmation that the above non-indicted 9's purchase of the land was made by the former owner's off-to-face 1, and the above letter 1, 80:080.

B. On 4. 195. (Written 1996, written in the indictment of this case) a public official who is not aware of the fact is required to make a registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case by requesting a certified judicial scrivener to make a registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant in the office of machinery such as the Daejeon District Court's official branch, etc. located in the same Dong on 1 May 1. of the same year, and make a public official make a registration of preservation of ownership on the original register of the land of this case to make a false report to the public official on the original register of the land of this case, to enter the false fact in the land register of the original notarial deed, which is the original copy of the notarial deed, and to use it without delay.

2. Prosecution of the defendant;

The Defendant obtained a letter of guarantee and a written confirmation as stated in the facts charged in order to preserve ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land, and completed the preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership by using the said written confirmation. However, it was several times that the Defendant had purchased the instant land from the deceased Non-Indicted Party before the deceased Non-Indicted Party was aware of the fact that the deceased Non-Indicted Party purchased the instant land from the deceased Non-Indicted Party before the deceased Non-Indicted Party, and that the deceased Non-Indicted Party was aware of the purchase of the instant land from the deceased Non-Indicted Party in around 1972, and that the deceased Non-Indicted Party was aware of the fact that the instant land was not unregistered after the death of the deceased Non-Indicted Party, and that it did not dispute the Defendant’s signature and seal, etc. by deceiving the deceased Non-Indicted Party, etc. to the effect that it did not receive the above certificate of guarantee by means of deception, etc. in spite of the fact that the above Non-Indicted Party did not purchase the instant land from the deceased.

3. Determination

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, each of the statements made by the court and the investigative agency and each of the above statements is stated in the land cadastre (section 4 of the investigation record) and the local tax assessment certificate (section 91 of the investigation record) in support of each of the above statements, the above evidence is examined.

(a) Oral statements

(1) Contents of the statement

The police officer stated that, around 1965 that, after the 1965-year lease of 5-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (i.

(2) The credibility of the statement

First of all, the above misleading statement is not consistent with the contents of the above land's lease and tax payment. Next, according to the statement made by the non-indicted 1 and 3 and each of the investigation stages in front of the above land, the statement at the building management ledger (section 89), the cadastral map (section 90), and the copy of the register (section 94 of the investigation record) submitted by the defendant as reference material in this court, it was cultivated nearby land including this case before the above deceased's house was located in the house of the defendant. The house of the defendant constructed around 1972 by the above deceased non-indicted 9 on the building ledger was located in the above (detailed address omitted), but it was actually located in the above (detailed address omitted) land adjacent to the above land by the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, who was the owner of the above land, and the remaining land was actually used by the non-indicted 3 as well as the land's family members living in front of the above land.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe that the statements of the above misunderstandings are inconsistent in light of the above facts recognized.

B. Meanwhile, the entry of the land cadastre is not always consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and the current Act stipulates that a person liable for payment of the aggregate land tax is an employer if it is not possible to verify the actual owner because it is not clear whether the ownership belongs to the owner of the land or the actual owner of the land. According to the prosecutorial statement, in practice, if a person asserts that he is the actual farmer of the land or the actual owner of the land, the taxpayer is changed without undergoing a special investigation procedure to verify the authenticity. As seen above, the public official in charge can only confirm only the land cadastre and recognize the fact that the taxpayer of the land of this case changed from the above non-party 4 to the above misunderstanding, so the taxpayer cannot be deemed the actual owner of the land immediately. Thus, the fact that the owner of the land of this case is registered as the above luse Hong, and the fact that the above misunderstanding was paid the aggregate land tax from around 199

C. Ultimately, there is no evidence to acknowledge all the charges of this case, which is premised on the fact that the defendant obtained a false confirmation document and made a false report to the registry official by using a false confirmation document.

4. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Act.

Judges Song Jong-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)