The establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage and the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed made by a third party with the knowledge that the debtor is not liable to the third party;

In collusion with the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, even if the third party did not bear any obligation against the mortgagee, and there is no legal relationship with him, even if the establishment registration of the right to collateral security was completed by the debtor with the third party, the parties to the right to collateral security agreement are willing to have the registration completed, so the crime of false entry in the original deed is not established, and even if it is believed that the mortgagee has consented to the establishment of the right to collateral security, the intent of the crime of false entry in the original deed is not recognized.

Article 228 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court (83 High Court Decision 8413)

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s entry in the registry that the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (name omitted) on the land and building owned by Nonindicted Party 1, the village depository, and the debtor recorded on the registry that three of Nonindicted Party 2, 3, and 4 established the right to collateral security, and exercised the right to collateral security at the registry, is not guilty.

The gist of the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal is as follows: first, among the facts of each crime at the time of original adjudication, the embezzlement of the defendant's actual embezzlement is limited to 30,000,00 won and the remainder is used to supplement the accumulated losses of the village credit cooperative; second, the defendant did not prepare each loan application in the name of the non-indicted 4, 3, 2, and 5; second, the non-indicted 2 consented to the preparation of each loan application in the name of the non-indicted 4, 3, and 3; second, the preparation of each loan application in the name of the non-indicted 4, 3, and 3 was his presumed consent; second, the debtor forged each mortgage contract in the name of the non-indicted 4, 3, and 2 and exercised it so that the non-indicted 4, 3, and 2 was recorded in the register and the establishment of the mortgage was made wrong; second, the court below acknowledged that the defendant had obtained the prior consent of the non-indicted 1.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, among the criminal facts of the defendant, the crime of occupational embezzlement, fabrication of private documents, and the exercise of the same, which the court below found the defendant guilty shall have been proved to be guilty, but the court below should have sentenced not guilty for the same reason as seen in the following. However, even though the court below found the defendant guilty, there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the conviction portion among the judgment below shall be reversed and it shall be ruled as follows.

The defendant, from February 26, 1978, is a person who is engaged in the regular business of the village credit cooperative located in 2-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (number omitted), and has overall control over the receipt and disbursements of money of the credit cooperative;

1. In order to withdraw money from the above village credit cooperative upon the request of Nonindicted 6 to lend its business funds and to lend it to that person, and in violation of its occupational duties,

A. On August 8, 1980, in addition to the sum table of KRW 1,140,076 paid by the same village credit cooperative office, 10,000,000,000, which is the presumptive to the sum table of KRW 11,140,076, which is the presumptive to the disbursement of KRW 11,140,076;

B. On November 29, 290 of the same year, Non-Indicted 5 withdraws KRW 10,000,000, pretended to have been financed by Non-Indicted 5 at the Dong Office;

(c) enter the same amount as KRW 1,00,000 on the loan ledger as Nonindicted 3 obtained a loan at the same date and at the same place, and withdraw the same amount;

D. On December 31 of the same year, the Defendant entered in the Dong Office the amount of KRW 3,500,000 in its loan ledger as if he had been given a loan, and withdraw the same amount; and

E. On March 14, 1981, as if Non-Indicted 7, Dong 8, Dong 9, and Dong 10 withdraw each gold amounting to 5,00,000 won in a regular deposit ledger, the sum amounting to 20,000,000 won is entered in the regular deposit ledger; and

F. At the Dong Office 30 of the same month, non-indicted 6 was stated as 4,560,654 won in the loan ledger as if they were loaned by non-indicted 6, and withdrawn the same amount; and

G. As if Nonindicted 11 and 12 withdraw each amount of KRW 5,000,000 on a regular deposit ledger at the same date, at the same time and place, Nonindicted 11 and 12 enter 10,000 won in a regular deposit ledger and withdraw 10,000,000 won in total at each time, and embezzled 50,060,654 won in total by either lending it to the said Nonindicted 6 as business funds or by using it as Defendant’s living expenses,

2. The purpose of establishing a right to collateral security by forging a third party’s loan application, a right to collateral security contract, etc. in order to provide documents necessary for the provision of security in return for promising to compensate for the illegal act committed to the auditor of the National Federation of Property Associations on October 1981;

A. On October 23, 1981, “81. 23.,” “5,00,000 won in the application form column,” “project costs” in the loan type column, “82. 23 (12 months)” in the repayment resources column, “in the repayment resources column,” “in the repayment resources column,” “383,500 won per month principal and interest corresponding to 2% per month,” “586-9 in the address column of joint and several sureties”, “Non-Indicted 1” in the joint and several sureties’s signature column, “Non-Indicted 4” in the application form, and “Non-Indicted 4” in the applicant column, and “Non-Indicted 4” in the name and duties of the applicant form, and “non-Indicted 4” in the name and duties of the applicant form.

B. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, each corresponding column (except for the applicant column) of the loan application form using a tamp-shaped with the same date and at the same time and place shall be recorded as indicated in the applicant column as “Non-Indicted 3” and the seal of the above Non-Indicted 3, which had already been received as an office of necessity for business, shall be pressured back to the name of the Dongin, thereby forging a copy of the application form for a loan in the name of Dongin, a private document concerning the rights and duties

C. On October 24, 24 of the same month, on the date of receipt of one sheet of the application for the loan using mix with mix for the purpose of exercising at the same location, “81.10.24,” “5,000,000 won” in the application amount column, “project cost” in the column for the purpose of use, “loan loan amount” in the column for repayment, “5,00 won per month principal and interest corresponding to 383,50 won and 2%” in the column for repayment, “586-9” in the column for joint and several sureties’s address, “Non-Indicted 1” in the signature column for the joint and several sureties’s signature, “81.24,” and “Non-Indicted 2” in the applicant column, and “Non-Indicted 2” already received the seals of the above Non-Indicted 2 in the name of the same person and forged one sheet of application for the loan preparation in the same name;

(d) On the date of receipt of one sheet of the application for a loan using tampl pents for the same date and at the same place, “81.10.23”, “5,000,00” in the application amount column, “5,000,” “project costs” in the loan type column, “82.23 (12 months)” in the repayment resources column “income” in the repayment method column, “383,50 won per month principal and interest corresponding to 2% per month,” “606-739(11 Ban),” “Non-Indicted 13” in the joint and several sureties’s signature column (at the time of application, Non-Indicted 23, 81.23) and “Non-Indicted 14,” and “Non-Indicted 14,” in the signature column of the joint and several sureties, the signature column had already been written in the name of the applicant “Non-Indicted 14,00” and had already been written in the name of the applicant “Non-Indicted 14,”.

3. A. On October 23, 198, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Dongmun-dong, 6.6.7-2, requested the legal office of the attorney non-indicted 15 located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul to enter the mortgage contract form "non-indicted 1" and "non-indicted 1" in the column of the maximum debt amount, "81. 23" on the date of preparation, "83. 193 square meters in the column of the real estate, 193 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and 25. 8. 5. 16 square meters in the house, 5. 16 square meters in the house, and 3. 4. 4. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3's name and the seal of the non-indicted 4's name and the seal of the non-indicted 3 as above, and 3. . 3. . 3 . . . 3. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ........ ...... . ............... . . . ... .... ....... .... . . . ... .

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and it is cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Articles 356, 355(1) (Selection of Imprisonment), 231, 234, the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 (a) of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment and Concurrent Punishment of Crimes and Concurrent Punishment of Crimes) and Article 57 of the Criminal Act

이 사건 공소사실중 피고인이 1988. 10. 23. 서울민사지방법원 성북등기소에서 채무자 및 근저당권설정자의 명의를 위조하여 작성한, 채권자 및 근저당권자는 모두 (명칭 생략) 마을금고, 근저당권설정자는 모두 공소외 1, 채권최고액은 모두 8,000,000원, 목적부동산의 표시는 모두 서울 성북구 돈암동 (지번 생략) 대 193평방미터, 위 지상 연와조와즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 25평 8홉 8작, 동소 (지번 생략) 대 16평방미터로 되어 있고 채무자만 각 공소외 4, 3, 2로 달리되어 있는 근저당권설정계약서 3매를 공소외 15 변호사로 하여금 성명불상의 등기공무원에게 마치 진정한 것처럼 제시하여 위 각 근저당권설정계약서 등이 진정한 것으로 오신한 위 성명불상의 등기공무원으로 하여금 부동산등기부에 위와 같은 각 근저당권설정을 기재하게 하여 공정증서원본인 등기부에 불실의 사실을 기재하게 하고 그 시경 동소에 이를 비치하게 하여 행사한 것이라는 점에 대하여 살피건대, 근저당권설정계약에 있어서는 채권자인 근저당권자와 근저당권설정의 대상이 되는 부동산의 소유자인 근저당권설정자가 그 당사자가 되는 것으로서의 양자 사이에 합의가 이루어지면 그로써 근저당권설정계약은 유효하게 성립하고 근저당권 설정이 제3자의 채무를 담보하기 위하여 이루어지는 이른바 물상 보증의 경우에도 위 제3자와의 사이에 합의가 있어야 한다거나 그의 동의가 있어야 하는 것은 아니라 할 것이므로 근저당권자가 근저당권설정자와 통모하여 제3자가 근저당권자에 대하여 아무런 채무를 부담하고 있지 아니하고 그와 같은 채무를 부담할 법률관계도 존재하지 아니함에도 불구하고 위 제3자를 채무자로 하는 근저당권설정계약을 체결하고 그에 기하여 근저당권설정등기가 경료되게 하고 이를 행사한 경우에도 근저당권설정계약의 당사자 사이에는 위와 같은 등기가 경료되게 할 의사는 있었던 것이므로 공정증서원본불실기재죄나 동행사죄는 성립되지 아니하며 이는 위 근저당권설정계약서상의 채무자의 명의가 위조된 경우에도 마찬가지라 할 것이고, 나아가서 부동산의 소유자가 위와 같은 근저당권을 설정할 것을 승락한 바 없는데도 근저당권자가 소유자의 승락이 있는 것으로 믿고 위와 같은 근저당권설정등기가 경료되게 한 경우에도 앞에서 본 바에 비추어 볼때 결국 근저당권자에게는 공정증서원본불실기재의 범의가 없었던 것으로 보아야 할 것인바, 이 사건에 있어서 피고인은 경찰과 검찰을 거쳐 원심 및 당심에 이르기까지 피고인은 위 근저당권설정등기를 경료하는데 있어 그 목적부동산의 소유자인 공소외 1의 사전승락이 있었던 것으로 알고 있었다고 주장하고 있으며 검사 및 사법경찰리작성의 공소외 13, 16에 대한 각 피의자신문조서 및 진술조서, 검사작성의 공소외 17, 18에 대한 각 진술조서의 각 진술기재에 의하면 피고인이 위 유죄부분에서 인정한 바와 같이 그가 상무로 근무하던 (명칭 생략) 마을금고의 돈을 횡령한 사실이 1981. 10.경 새마을금고 연합회의 감사결과 밝혀지자 당시 위 마을금고의 이사장이던 공소외 13, 위 마을금고의 실무책임자이던 피고인 및 여신위원, 감사등 위 마을금고의 임원들과 전 이사장이던 공소외 16 등이 그 수습대책을 논의한 끝에 우선 피고인이 횡령한 금액을 위 마을금고에서 적법하게 대출한 것으로 서류를 작성하되 그 대출시에 확보하여야 할 담보로서는 위 공소외 13이 자기소유의 부동산을, 위 공소외 16이 그 조카인 공소외 1 소유의 부동산을 각 위 마을금고에 제공하여 그와 같이 새마을금고 연합회에 보고하기로 하고 다만 위 공소외 13, 16이 제공한 부동산은 피고인이 며칠 이내에 다른 담보물로 바꾸어 놓기로 한 사실, 그에 따라 위 공소외 16은 조카인 위 공소외 1에게 특별히 용도를 이야기하지 않은 채로 그의 인장을 빌려줄 것을 요구하여 위 공소외 1은 위 인장이 어디에 사용될 것인지 모르면서 위 인장을 위 공소외 16에게 빌려 주었고 위 공소외 16은 이를 다시 피고인에게 교부하였던 사실, 피고인은 위와 같이 위 공소외 16이 위 공소외 1의 인장을 교부하게 된 경위나 위 공소외 16과 공소외 1 사이의 관계 등에 비추어 위 공소외 1이 그 소유의 부동산을 위 마을금고를 위하여 담보로 제공하는데 동의한 것으로 믿고 위 공소사실과 같이 위 공소외 1의 인장을 사용하여 위 공소외 1의 소유부동산에 관하여 채무자인 공소외 4, 3, 2의 명의를 위조하여 근저당권설정계약서를 작성, 근저당권설정등기를 경료하게 하고 그 등기부를 등기소에 비치하게 한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 이에 반하는 검사작성의 공소외 16, 17, 18에 대한 각 진술조서중 위 공소외 1 등의 부동산을 담보로 제공하는 것처럼 서류만을 작성하여 새마을금고 연합회에 보고하고 실제 근저당권설정등기는 피고인이 제공하는 부동산에 관하여 하기로 하였다는 취지의 각 진술기재 부분은 믿기 어려운 바, 그렇다면 피고인은 위 공소사실기재의 근저당권설정에 있어 위 공소외 1의 동의가 있었던 것으로 믿고 위와 같이 근저당권설정등기가 경료되게 하고 그 등기부를 등기소에 비치하게 한 것으로서 공정증서원본불실기재, 동행사의 범의가 없었다고 할 것이고 달리 피고인에게 그와 같은 범의가 있었다고 인정할만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, there is no proof of the crime as to the false entry of the original copy of the Notarial Deed as stated in the facts charged of this case, and it is not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Sung-man (Presiding Justice)