In case where farmland is sold to a non-farmer who is a non-self-employed and has no own will and double transferred to a third party, and whether the crime of breach of trust is committed.

Since a contract for selling farmland to a person who is not a farmer but is unable to acquire farmland under the Farmland Reform Act because he/she does not have a duty to implement ownership transfer registration, the seller does not have a duty to double transfer of the farmland to a third party.

Article 35 (2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3 and 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (as to all the defendants):

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No3159 delivered on October 25, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although Defendant 2 sold this case's land to the non-public loan and the non-public loan around January 5, 1960 on the charge of breach of trust among the facts charged against the Defendants, the court below acknowledged that the Defendants conspired with each other on March 15, 197, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale in the future as stated in its holding, but it acknowledged that the above farmland was not a farmer at the time of purchase of the above farmland from the above non-public loan as well as at the time of acquisition of ownership transfer for the above defendant 1, and did not have the intention to own or own the above farmland. Thus, the above farmland sales contract concluded with Defendant 2 cannot be acquired the ownership of the above farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the above farmland sales contract concluded with Defendant 2 becomes null and void, the duty of Defendant 2 cannot perform the registration of ownership transfer for the above farmland, and eventually, the above Defendants' violation of the rules of evidence is justified and there is no evidence to prove the crime of breach of trust.

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

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)