Even if the fact that the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was registered in the sale of real estate was not notified, such notice shall not be a deception unless there is any circumstance that the purchaser would not enter into the above sales contract if he was aware of the registration.

Even if the fact that the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was registered in the sale of real estate was not notified, such notice shall not be a deception unless there is any circumstance that the purchaser would not enter into the above sales contract if he was aware of the registration.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 71No2452 delivered on November 17, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal by the prosecutor of Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office is examined.

The court below stated that the defendant's sale of the real estate in this case was without notifying the non-indicted 1 of the fact that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was made on December 16, 1967. However, considering the records of this case, there is no evidence that the defendant actively concealed the fact that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was made, the defendant could not be viewed as the act of deceiving the non-indicted 1. However, even if the defendant did not directly notify the non-indicted 1, the fact that the establishment of the right to collateral security was established on the real estate in this case (the fact that the non-indicted 2 was notified to the non-indicted 1, the right to collateral security was established, even if it was not directly by the non-indicted 1, the defendant's purchase and sale of the real estate in this case, which was the date of payment of the right to collateral security (the fact that the non-indicted 1, the right to collateral security was not known to the non-indicted 1, and it cannot be concluded that there was no reason to conclude that the above facts were false for the defendant's fraud.

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court