A. Provisional registration of title trust land, creation of superficies and embezzlement (affirmative)

(b) If the person who keeps the joint deposit money belonging to others voluntarily consumes it, the sex of embezzlement;

A. Even if the application for the building permit of a tenement was rejected, the so-called "non-indicted (A), etc. registered as a provisional registration or superficies creation registration for the purpose of securing the loan in violation of the above trust relationship, constitutes embezzlement, because the defendant, who was in charge of the chairperson of the committee for relocation measures of the removed residents established for the purpose of purchasing the land and constructing a tenement house, was entrusted under the name of the defendant, the non-indicted (A), and (B) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the said committee, and was kept for the said committee, the land was kept for the said committee.

B. Since the amount returned by the contractor of the Housing Corporation to the committee for the relocation measures for the above removal pursuant to the provisions of the removal residents against the illegal disposal of the trust land is belonging to the joint ownership of the removal residents, if the defendant, the chairperson of the committee, uses the above amount in a third party without the consent of all the members, he/she shall constitute embezzlement. Thus, even if he/she intends to pay part of the amount to the removal residents, he/she shall have the intention of acquisition if he/she distributes part of the amount in mind.

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No97 delivered on April 29, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As determined by the judgment below, at least 10 persons such as the first removal of Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the first disposal of the non-indicted 100 persons living in Seoul and the second disposal of the apartment house on the ground that the defendant, who was responsible for the chairperson of the committee on the countermeasures for the relocation of the first-dong residents, purchased the land with the funds of the removal residents, was entrusted under the name of the defendant 1 and the second-party 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above land, and the above land should have been kept under the custody of the committee. The above land is the building control area, and the above land is not only the building control area, but it is not objectively acceptable to conclude the apartment house construction contract with the defendant under the judgment of the court below or pay the construction money, and it constitutes a provisional registration of the ownership transfer and the trust property on the above land by borrowing KRW 50,000 from the Lee Jong-dong, etc. as collateral for the above trust relation, thereby constituting a crime of embezzlement.

B. As above, according to the above provisions of the above removal residents as to the illegal disposal of the above real estate, since the amount returned by the defendant to the above Countermeasure Committee is belonging to the joint ownership of the removal residents, the use of the above money to the other without the consent of all the joint occupants should also constitute embezzlement. Thus, even for the payment of part of the withdrawal from the above Committee to the removal residents, if part of the money is distributed in mind as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be deemed to have the intention of acquisition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, and the appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

2. Defendant 2 filed a lawful appeal, but without submitting a statement of the grounds of appeal within the prescribed period, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the grounds of appeal are not stated in the petition of appeal.

This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)