1. Whether the crime of forging a document is established, where a document in the name of the deceased is prepared;

1. Whether the crime of embezzlement is established where a person whose cause of transfer by improper means was invalidated, the person who registered the real estate uses the sold real estate in the name of the titleholder under an agreement with the owner;

1. The crime of forging a private document shall not be committed unless the preparing date of the relevant investigation document is written as the date of survival of the deceased;

1. If a person, who has completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name by unlawful means, has reached an agreement with the original owner and has sold the real estate under the current title holder’s name with the registration completed, the ownership of the proceeds of sale belongs to the present title holder, and even if the current title holder arbitrarily consumes the money during his custody, embezzlement is not established.

Articles 231 and 355 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court (69Da17511)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is that the above crime of embezzlement and the crime of uttering of private documents are only confessions against the defendant, and the victims were testified consistent with the facts charged. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty, and further found the sentencing of the defendant as unjust. Thus, the gist of the facts charged as to the forgery of private documents and the above uttering is as follows: (a) one copy of the certificate of seal impression and the sale certificate of the deceased non-indicted 1; and (b) one copy of the certificate of seal impression and the two delegations of the application for registration were forged for the purpose of exercising the above right to submit to the public official; (c) the deceased non-indicted 1, the nominal owner of each of the above private documents, had already died at the time of preparation of each of the above crimes of embezzlement, and (d) the deceased non-indicted 1, the title of the above crimes of embezzlement and the above non-indicted 2, who had been recorded in the copy of each of the above investigation documents, cannot be found to have been established on the 6th day after the completion of the evidence and the sale.

Then, considering the following argument about the argument about sentencing, since it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is unfair because the defendant is too uneasible, in light of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment and motive, means, results, circumstances after the crime, and all other reasons that are conditions for sentencing, the court below's argument about this point is groundless. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Nung-gu (Presiding Judge)