The case holding that it is a special larceny in case where the seller of the middle term, which is the object of the sale in the ownership reservation book, recovered from the seller of the middle term to another company already incorporated from the buyer.

Since Eul reserved the ownership of the company Gap and purchased the company Eul in installment from Byung to Byung, Eul entered the company Byung, registered the company Byung as the owner, and then registered the company Eul in the mid-term register to secure Eul's obligation to pay for installment sale to Byung, Eul occupied Eul, which was held in possession of Eul, and even if the defendants were to take advantage of the above period without permission, even though the land owner has a de facto disposal management right, this is merely an internal relationship with the company to which the land owner was taken, and externally, the company whose owner was taken over has a right (such as public charges, etc. and liability for damages of the mid-term owner) as the owner. Thus, the defendants' act of taking advantage of the company constitutes a special larceny because it infringes on the ownership of the company's mid-term register, which was already taken place.

Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3 and 4 of the Mid-Term Management Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Seo-sung et al. and three others

Chuncheon District Court Decision 88No762 delivered on March 23, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-indicted Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Samsung Heavy Industries) reserved and purchased the ownership of the two of the instant Samsung Heavy Industries from the non-indicted Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Ssung Heavy Industries"), and entered the same Jung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Song Heavy Heavy") into the Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., and registered the same Jung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. as the owner of the said Samsung Heavy Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd., and registered the said Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. as the owner of the said Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd., and the said Samsung Heavy Co., Ltd. occupied the said Samsung Heavy Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. in order to secure the obligation to pay for the secondary purchase of each of the above Samsung Heavy Heavy Heavy Industries, but the Defendants brought the above heavy Co., Ltd. to the said Samsung Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. without undergoing due process, and therefore, it constitutes a special larceny as an act infringing upon the ownership of the said Samsung Heavy.

This is because, according to the mid-term Management Act, the Mayor/Do governor shall keep the mid-term register and report the change of the registered matters of the mid-term (Article 3), as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and so long as the person registered as the owner in the mid-term register is not null and void (Article 4), he/she shall be the owner externally. Therefore, in the case of the mid-term, the owner of Samsung Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries shall not be the owner of the mid-term or the winter and are not the owner of the mid-term, and it shall not be the owner of the mid-term, the mid-term and the winter Heavy Industries. And in the case of the mid-term, the argument that the registration under the mid-Term Management Act is to be one material irrelevant to the acquisition, loss, and administrative management of the ownership, it is not acceptable to accept, and even if the mid-term owner has de facto right to dispose of the ownership, it shall not affect the decision of the court below as the owner of the mid-term and the part of the obligation to pay damages.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on larceny.

With respect to the second ground:

In addition, if the Defendants were to take the middle of the instant case while recognizing the above facts, it shall be deemed that there was a criminal intent of larceny. The facts cited in the arguments are as follows: (a) the Defendants’ mistake that the Defendants did not commit a crime; (b) the mistake that the Defendants did not have any justifiable reason; or (c) the Defendants’ intent to obtain unlawful acquisition does not violate social rules.

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 83Do1762, 83Do315 Decided September 13, 1983 (Supreme Court Decision 83Do172, 83Do315 Decided September 13, 1983) cited as the

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)