Whether the registration of ownership transfer with procedural defect is established as a false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed and the crime of the exercise thereof.

Although registration of ownership transfer is a procedural defect, it can not be considered as a false entry in the original authentic document and a crime of its exercise if it conforms to the substantive relationship of rights.

Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1682 Decided November 28, 1967

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 78No506 delivered on January 31, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records of the first instance court's decision, the defendant's non-indicted 5,00 land including the land at issue in this case was purchased from the deceased No. 5,00, and the defendant filed a complaint with the defendant who is the plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer on the land at issue with the court below's judgment in favor of the defendant for the registration of ownership transfer, and the registration of ownership transfer is consistent with the substantive relation of the right even if there is procedural defect, so the registration of ownership transfer cannot be viewed as the fraudulent entry in the original copy of the authentic deed and the execution thereof, and there is no evidence to find that there is a criminal intention to acquire the land to another person, and it cannot be said that there is any error of incomplete deliberation or the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the prosecutor's appeal with support of the first instance court's decision is justified and there is no reason to discuss the theory of lawsuit with different opinions.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)