Defendant

Mazyn-ray

Han Law Firm, Attorney Han-hee

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant, in a de facto marital relationship with the non-indicted 1, was living together with the non-indicted 1 in the non-indicted 1's first claim apartment (dong name omitted) in the Jung-gu Government's 576 private house (dong name omitted). When the non-indicted 1 died suddenly around August 23, 2005, around August 26, 2005, the defendant stolen the above apartment with the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 4's heir, the victim non-indicted 1's real estate in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, the right to registration of the above apartment, three copies of the sale contract concerning the above apartment, one one copy of the sale contract on the second apartment in Yangju-si, Seoul, and one copy of the lease contract on the non-indicted 2, and one copy of the loan certificate on the non-indicted 1).

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 5

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 5

1. Written opinions of each complainant, supplementary documents to the written complaint, and written applications for carbon, and written complaints;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 329 of the Criminal Code, Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that he did not have an intent to acquire unlawful ownership since he could not leave the above provisional house containing important documents about the non-indicted 1's property, and he tried to return it to the non-indicted 1's heir. However, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant did not have an intention to obtain ownership transfer registration after he died on August 23, 2005 and his funeral was kept in the apartment house living with the non-indicted 1 on August 26, 2005. The defendant had the above provisional house and kept it on August 27, 2005. The defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration against the non-indicted 1's heir was made on August 27, 2005 at the request of the victim non-indicted 1's heir, the non-indicted 1's third-party 1's third-party 1's claim for ownership transfer registration on the non-indicted 1's property at the request of the plaintiff non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 2's claim for ownership transfer registration.

On the other hand, the defendant's defense counsel asserted that the facts charged of this case are related to the facts charged of this case and the facts charged of this case's judgment of acquittal in this case, since the defendant's defense counsel had a relation to the final judgment of 2006Kadan449 delivered on July 14, 2006, and therefore, it should be sentenced to acquittal in this case. However, the facts charged of this judgment is a separate crime since the defendant transferred 47,000,000 won, which was kept in the deposit account in the name of non-indicted 1, around August 23, 2005, to another deposit account.

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

Judges Choi Ho-young

1) The Defendant was indicted for embezzlement against the charge of embezzlement that he voluntarily left the above bank kept by the Defendant for the initial victims and refused to return the said bank. However, even if the heir acquired the right to control and manage the said apartment house upon Nonindicted 1’s death and the heir did not specifically recognize the existence of the above bank, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in possession of the above bank on behalf of Nonindicted 1 or his heir, solely on the ground that Nonindicted 1 returned home to the Defendant, and the Defendant left the above bank. Thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established. Meanwhile, the possession under the Criminal Act is not recognized. Meanwhile, even though the inheritance under the Criminal Act is not recognized (the counsel asserted that the possession of the apartment is not constituted larceny based on the summary of the oral argument submitted on January 26, 2010, which was the closing date of the oral argument). As long as Nonindicted 1’s ownership was transferred to the heir and the heir acquired the right to control and manage the said apartment house, even if the Defendant did not specifically recognize the existence of the bank in question.