Recognizing that a person who has completed a registration of ownership transfer by forging a certificate of seal imprint, etc. of a registered titleholder has sold real estate with the consent of his nominal owner.

In the process of passing the registration of ownership transfer of another person's real estate, the court below's finding that the defendant has forged a certificate of ownership transfer of another person's real estate and received sales balance from the purchaser who is not aware of such fact that the court below recognized the forgery of public documents, event, or fraud, it can be easily confirmed that the titleholder had not consented to the above sale, barring any special circumstances. However, the court below's finding that the defendant sold the above real estate with the consent of the above holder of the registration can not be exempted from criticism that it violated the rule of experience.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 85No1705 delivered on February 20, 1986

The non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the erroneous entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the fact that the instant real estate was registered for transfer of ownership in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 in the front place of the Defendant, but its substance is the ownership of the Defendant and completed the registration for transfer of ownership by forging Nonindicted Party 1’s seal impression while selling the said land to Gangwon, but on the ground that Nonindicted Party 1’s consent was given in the said sale, the Defendant entered into a contract as a lawful agent of Nonindicted Party 1, and thus, the registration itself is valid in line with the substantive legal relationship, and therefore, the said transfer registration procedure cannot be deemed a crime

However, the above judgment of the court below is acknowledged to be a highly doubtful conclusion that the evidence and the trial process revealed in the record alone are highly doubtful. First, although the above land was registered as owned by the non-indicted 1, it is judged to the effect that it actually belongs to the ownership of the defendant. Although the defendant alleged that the non-indicted 1's registration was illegally transferred because he stolen the certificate of the personal seal impression, etc. that he had come to death of the defendant, it is difficult for the non-indicted 1 to find out that he was divorced from the defendant and separate from the defendant, but the defendant did not know that he would demand consolation money after being living together with the non-indicted 1 and later, he would not be able to combine with the non-indicted 1, but it was well clear that the defendant had no consent to the sale and purchase of the above land until the non-indicted 1 did not know of the fact that the non-indicted 1 had obtained his consent to the sale and purchase of the above land by using the seal imprint and the certificate of the personal seal impression. Despite the fact that the above land was actually owned by the defendant, the non-indicted 1's consent.

The court below, based on the defendant's defense, rejected evidence that corresponds to the facts charged, thereby leading to a judgment contrary to the empirical rule. It is reasonable to argue that the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of false entry in the original authentic deed.

Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)