[1] If there is a defect that constitutes grounds for revocation in the entries in the original of a notarial deed, the nature of the crime of false entry in the original of the notarial deed (negative

[2] The case holding that the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of a authentic deed is not established where a registration of ownership transfer has been made pursuant to a contract of gift concluded by deception

[1] Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do233 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2835 delivered on September 10, 1993) Supreme Court Decision 95Do448 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 696)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004No571 Decided June 11, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed is established when a public official makes a false report to a public official to enter false facts in the original copy of the notarial deed. Even if there is any defect falling under the invalidation even if there is no or external existence of the matters stated in the original copy of the notarial deed, such entry shall constitute a false entry. However, if there is any defect which is the reason for revocation and it is only a defect which is the reason for revocation, it does not constitute a false entry in the original copy of the notarial deed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do698, Sept. 10, 1993; 96Do233, Jun. 11, 1996; 95Do448, Jan. 24, 197).

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) the defendant's co-inheritors transferred the land on the judgment that he owned the co-inheritors's co-inheritors's co-inheritors's co-inheritors's co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors's co-inheritors' co-inheritors's co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors's co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-inheritors' co-ownership of their co-inheritors' co-ownership share to the defendant's share.

According to the legal principles as seen earlier, even based on the facts charged, a gift contract, which is the act of causing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as to 182/286 shares of the above inheritance right holder, exists objectively. Thus, even if there is a defect of deception as above, it cannot be said that the defendant reported false facts to the registry officer and made him enter false facts in the register, unless the donation contract is revoked on the ground of such defect.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that maintained the first instance court which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)