Whether it constitutes a crime of breach of trust in selling real estate again after a conspiracy with a false representation (negative)

The Defendant prepared and delivered a sales contract on the instant real estate to the wife in a false manner on the ground that the Defendant settled the dispute with the Nonindicted Party on the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant was faced with the Defendant, and completed a provisional registration, sold part of the said real estate to another person, and thus cannot be deemed as an act of breach of trust by double sale.

Article 355 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Chang-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No1286,82 elementary108 delivered on September 24, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's duty to sell the real estate 14 lots to non-indicted 1 and to make the registration of ownership transfer to that person. In violation of his duty, the defendant again sold three parcels of real estate to non-indicted 1 Kim Jong-chul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name. The defendant, without a legitimate title, prepared one copy of the provisional registration certificate in the name of non-indicted 1 and one copy of the registration application for cancellation of the above real estate, and submitted it to the registry under the presumption that the above provisional registration was forged and genuine, and had the registration official in charge enter false facts in the original register, and had the above provisional registration enter the above provisional registration in the original register and keep the original copy of the registration. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provisional registration under the name of the non-indicted 14, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provisional registration, it cannot be seen that the defendant had the authority to sell the above real estate under the name of the non-indicted 1 and the above provisional registration.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice)