logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 6. 22. 선고 71도827 판결
[사문서위조][집19(2)형,038]
Main Issues

An act that does not violate social norms is a concept derived from the principle of a super-legal bridge or the legitimacy of the purpose and means, or the principle of social reasonableness.

Summary of Judgment

An act that does not violate social norms is derived from the principles of balancing of interests, the purpose and the legitimacy of the means, or the principles of social reasonableness.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 20 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No308 delivered on March 30, 1971, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No308 delivered on March 30, 1971

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor shall be examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the contents of the judgment or its judgment, the court below held that the act of the defendant, who was the facts charged, purchased the ownership transfer registration (title trust) in his name, was due to the sale on January 12, 1966, and recognized that the transfer registration was due to the gift by the head of the competent tax office after having completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-indicted 2's fraudulent act, and that the defendant was not in violation of the principle of fraud and the duty of the non-indicted 2's consent, even if he did not know of the fact that the non-indicted 2's act was an unlawful act in the name of the non-indicted 3's office (Seoul Bundong) and thus, it was hard to recognize that the non-indicted 2's act was a mere act of forgery or donation to the non-indicted 1, and thus, it was against the law that the defendant was not in violation of the duty of the non-indicted 2's own seal and its consent.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu

arrow
참조조문
본문참조조문
기타문서