beta
Main Issues
An act of changing the name of the criminal defendant in the name of the family register to the name of the criminal defendant in order to dispose of the unregistered house after selling it to the "B" is not a crime of breach of trust.
Summary of Judgment
Since the act of changing the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant's wife to dispose of the unregistered house after selling it to (A) and then changing it to the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant's wife cannot be deemed to have inflicted property profit on the defendant's wife or property damage to (A), the above act cannot be deemed to have commenced an
[Reference Provisions]
Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 69No70 delivered on March 13, 1969
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The Seoul District Prosecutor's Grounds for Appeal shall be examined.
The court below's opinion is that the documents kept on the house ledger which clearly made the shape of the house by registering the location, type, structure, owner, etc. of the building and clearly indicate the facts about the house, and that the entry in the house ledger is not for the purpose of disclosing the relation of rights to the house, such as the register, but for the purpose of disclosing the right to the house. In other words, the fact that the other person entered in the house ledger in the name of another person is not presumed to acquire the ownership of the house or to be the owner, and it cannot be said that he infringed on the right of the owner of the house merely because he did not grant any right to the other person. The defendant agreed to implement the unregistered house to transfer the ownership of the house to the non-indicted 1, and changed the name of the defendant in the name of the non-indicted 2 in the name of the defendant to the non-indicted 1, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the non-indicted 1 had any property damage to the non-indicted 1, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of breach of trust.
Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri