Destruction of real estate registers and documents

Since the real estate register is an object belonging to a person other than an offender and it is not acquired by a person other than an offender with knowledge of fact after the crime, the vehicle cannot be confiscated. Therefore, the declaration of destruction under Article 48(3) of the Criminal Act cannot be made because the specified part of the register is a part of the document and constitutes confiscation.

Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Appellant

Seoul District Court and Seoul High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

The number of detention days before a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, which is 70 days from the number of detention days before the judgment of the court of second instance, shall be included in the applicable sentence

Seized evidence referred to in subparagraphs 2 through 4 shall be confiscated.

The grounds of appeal by the appellant stated that the first instance court, as cited by the court below, was given KRW 364,00 of the amount in time of the crime, and then embezzled and consumed it between the beginning of May and the beginning of May during the custody. However, according to Non-Indicted 1’s examination protocol paragraph (10) of the witness Non-Indicted 1, it is evident that the first instance court delivered it as a check of KRW 674,00 of the total amount of money in exchange for which the first time of the non-real estate, the amount of

From among the Does that 6 cases were combined with Do six cases, which were faithfully performed by up to 4 cases during the period, the fact that the company checks were defaulted, and there was a certain space such as the period for correction due to the default of documents even before the payment of the next checks. The fact that even before this space was withdrawn, there was a fact that the trustee pre-paid for the expenses and received the advance payment from the depositor, and the fact that Non-Indicted 2, who is well aware of the fact that he received the advance payment from the depositor, was able to believe that he did not enter the place of mutual credit from the depositor, among the admission fees to the university hospital, the fact that Non-Indicted 2, who was 364,00 won for temporary appropriation of the charges of the above 3-year period for the above 2-year period for the above 3-year period for the above 2-year period for the above 3-year period for the use of the 3-year period for the above 2-year period for the above 3-year period for the use of the 2-year period for the indictment.

If several acts constitute a single crime, concurrent crimes are to be discussed as one crime, and if such acts were to be carried out by the victim's prior to the end of the 2nd session, it is impossible to treat the original crime as one crime for disposal. Therefore, if the judgment on the 1st session is minor, it is hard to judge the other crimes. However, it is hard to see that the 6th session of the Criminal Act is an initial crime of embezzlement and 4th session of the same crime of embezzlement and 6th session of the Criminal Code. It is hard to see that the 6th session of the Criminal Code is a new crime of embezzlement and 4th session of the same crime of embezzlement and 6th session of the same crime of embezzlement and 6th session of the Criminal Code. It is hard to see that the 6th session of the Criminal Code is a new crime of embezzlement and 4th session of the same crime of embezzlement and 6th session of the same crime of embezzlement and 5th session of the Criminal Code.

According to the original judgment in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the court below found that the original judgment was sentenced to destruction by applying Article 48(3) of the Criminal Act, since it is part of the document about each registration in the real estate register with respect to the registration number of No. 11119 and No. 1122 among the registration of real estate with respect to No. 1, 3,249 and No. 195 of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongbuk-dong 195 and No. 195 of the same Act, and it constitutes confiscation as part of the document. Therefore, the former real estate register is a thing belonging to a person other than the criminal, and since a person other than the criminal was knowingly acquired after the crime, the original judgment cannot be confiscated, despite that there is a violation of Article 48 of the Criminal Act that the original judgment was sentenced to display and discard.

In accordance with Articles 391 and 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the defendant directly decides on the original judgment of the Republic of Korea. Since the defendant graduated from the Daegu National Agricultural University, entered the Air Force, and was removed from August 4287, and is an assistant of judicial affairs, he shall carry out the short-term period of 96 U.S.-Appellant's office at Jongno-gu 1, Dong-dong 1, Dong-dong 1, Dong-dong, Seoul, the accounting division of the U.S.-dong 1, which was removed from 195 U.S., the defendant's office of the Seoul High Court for the purpose of using the above 1, 249 and 195 U.S.'s official seal transfer registration to 360 U.S. official seal transfer registration to 1, 360 U.S. official seal transfer registration to 1, 360 U.S. official seal transfer registration to 1, 195.

In the so-called "Embezzlement" of the defendant's holding in the law, the point of embezzlement is as follows: Article 355 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code; Article 238 (1) (3) of the Criminal Code; Article 225 (4) of the same Code provides that if Article 229 (5) (4) of the same Code provides that if Article 229 (1) (5) of the same Act provides that if Article 228 (1) (6) of the same Act provides that if Article 229 (1) (5) of the same Act provides that if Article 229 (1) (6) of the same Act provides that if Article 229 (2) of the same Act provides that "a person is guilty, he/she shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor among the prescribed crimes (1) (5) (6) of the same Act, he/she shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of punishment aggravated for the crime of uttering of forged documents, he/she shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor within 16 months and 40 days prior to confiscation.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)