(a) Legal effect of the act of transferring the right of the successful bidder of the property devolving upon the State;

B. Whether the duty of the transferor to cooperate in the transfer registration and the crime of breach of trust is established on the vested property.

(c) The elements of the crime of evading compulsory execution.

(d) the original of a notarial deed shall not be deemed to be false entry and its exercise;

A. The act of a successful bidder of the property devolving upon another person does not take effect under this Act and the act of transferring the right to such property to another person is merely an obligation under a civil transfer contract subject to the acquisition of ownership. Therefore, even if the transferee again transferred the right to another person, he/she cannot be required to cooperate with the registration of transfer under his/her name unless the registration of transfer of ownership is made under the name of another person, and thus, he/she cannot be deemed the subject of the crime of breach

(b) Even though real estate is not actually traded but under mutual agreement, and the cause of registration is the sale and purchase as the other party in the name of the other party for convenience, and the other party concerned wishes to register the transfer due to sale and purchase, it shall not be the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the deed

C. The crime of evading compulsory execution is a crime of evading compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, or under specific circumstances where there is a specific concern about the execution of provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc. applicable mutatis mutandis, and thus, selling the right to the real estate so that another person’s right to the real estate is sold to another person, and making another person make a title trust registration again shall not

D. The act of transferring the right as a successful bidder of the property devolving upon another person does not have any effect on the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, but it is only a civil obligation under a contract for transfer on the condition of the acquisition of ownership, and even if the transferee again transfers the right to another person, he cannot be said to have a duty to cooperate in the registration of transfer under his name unless the registration of transfer of ownership is made under the name of another person, and thus, he cannot be the subject of

Articles 355, 327, and 228 of the Criminal Act; Article 34 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No1874 delivered on October 8, 1969

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by prosecutor Kim Sung-sung are examined.

According to the facts established by legitimate evidence, around October 19, 1962, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 paid the deposit for the real estate which is the property devolving upon Defendant 1 (Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-dong (number omitted) to the non-indicted 1, who was the wife of the non-indicted 1, and KRW 700,00,000, after being awarded the contract for the real estate from the Seoul Central Government to the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 4, and the ownership transfer registration was cancelled under the name of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, who was the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, and the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 1, transferred the above real estate under the name of the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3.

Thus, the act of Defendant 1 and 2, etc., as the actual successful bidder of the property belonging to this case, of transferring the right to the said property to Nonindicted 2 to Defendant 3 does not take effect under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Which they belong. However, when acquiring the ownership of this case, each seller bears the obligation under the civil transfer contract, and each seller bears the obligation under the civil transfer contract.

Unless there is a registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3, it cannot be said that the Dong has a duty to cooperate in the transfer registration to Nonindicted 2. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Dong is a person who administers Nonindicted 2’s business, and Defendant 1 and 2 processed this, and it cannot be deemed as an accomplice in the crime of breach of trust.

The judgment of the court below with the above purport is justifiable, and the crime of evading compulsory execution refers to evading compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, or execution of provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc. which applies mutatis mutandis under the same Act, under the circumstances where there is a possibility that it will be specifically subject to compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it cannot be said that Defendant 1’s sale to Nonindicted 2, the victim through Defendant 3 was constituted a crime of evading compulsory execution by completing the registration of transfer of ownership under a title trust to Defendant Park Byung-kick's ward by completing the registration of transfer of ownership under the title trust. Thus, the court below did not bear any obligation for Defendant 1 to Defendant 3 Nonindicted 2, and therefore, Defendant 4, who processed it, did not err in taking any measure that could not be an accomplice, and therefore the argument on this point is groundless.

Defendant Han-man and Dong Park Dong-dong Park et al. do not actually sell and sell this real estate, but they had an intent to register ownership transfer under mutual agreement by making the name of Defendant Park Jong-dae as the cause of the registration in the future as the name of Defendant Park Jong-dong, the reason for the sale and purchase between the parties. As such, the original copy of a notarial deed cannot be deemed to be a false entry and its exercise. Thus, there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above measures. Thus, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Articles 390 and 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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