(a) Whether the crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership, etc. is established where the transfer registration of ownership made by a false letter of guarantee conforms to the substantive relationship with the owner's instructions (affirmative);

(b) Site of the law and mistake of the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act;

(a) If a false certification has been drawn up or exercised, the crime of Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership is established regardless of whether the registration of ownership transfer based on the false certification complies with the substantive relations even though it was followed by the instruction of the person who registered the ownership of a novel;

B. Even though the Defendant did not know that his crime was in violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, it is merely a mere legal site, and it cannot be deemed that this constitutes Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

(a) Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do2211 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988,386) (Gong1988,725 delivered on March 8, 198) 87Do507 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989,255) (Gong1989,1034 delivered on May 23, 1990) 90Do1031 delivered on August 24, 1990 (Gong190,2050)

A

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89No395 delivered on April 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified, and even if the transfer registration of ownership on the family registry complies with the substantive relation, if it is made to prepare or exercise a false guarantee, it constitutes a crime against the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc., and even if it is in accordance with the direction of the name holder of the registry, there is no change in the establishment of a crime falling under Article 13 (1) of the aforesaid Act regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive relation (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Do2211, Dec. 22, 1987; 88Do507, Dec. 27, 1988; 87Do2629, Mar. 8, 198). Thus, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts-finding of this case is just and justified, and even if the defendant had known that it was in violation of the above Act, it is merely impossible to do so, and it constitutes a case falling under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to less than ten years of imprisonment for an unfair sentencing, no legitimate ground of appeal may be considered as a legitimate ground 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)