Division and lease of property belonging to a vested enterprise

Even if the ship's truck control corporation is a corporation to which it belongs, it is illegal that it did not take a separate measure as prescribed by the Act on the Establishment of Property Belonging to the State, even though the ship's construction site is the property belonging to the corporation.

Articles 4, 8, 24, 363, and 520 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Section 40

Secretary Lee Jae-hoon, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Lee Young-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Seoul High Court Decision 56Do101 delivered on December 13, 1956

We reverse the original summary order.

Acquittal Defendant 1

The facts of this case are that the defendant is in possession of 12 5 copies per week within his own home on March 19, 4286 for the purpose of sale without a license. However, the two judges of Gwangju District Court sent a summary order to the defendant on October 7, 4289 and the period for filing a request for a formal trial on October 15 of the same month, and the fact of this case is confirmed to be after the lapse of the period for filing a request for a formal trial on October 19, 4286, and the summary order issued by the Court of Justice was served for three years until October 15, 4289 without taking the procedure for suspending the statute of limitations such as under Article 17 of the Tax Punishment Act for a short term of three years until October 15, 4289. Thus, in light of Article 363 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below's application for a summary order after the completion of the statute of limitations is in violation of the law.

According to the records, on October 19, 4286, the prosecutor sent the summary order to the defendant on March 19, 4286 without a license and served it on the defendant on March 19, 4286, and requested the summary order on the charge that the defendant was in possession of 12 5 small liquor at his own home on March 19, 4286. On December 3 of the same year, the court below acknowledged the facts charged by the Gwangju District Court as well as the summary order imposed on the defendant in accordance with Article 5 of the Liquor Tax Act and Articles 7 and 8 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and neglected the issuance of the summary order to the defendant or any other disposition of public trial such as ordering the suspension of the statute of limitations on the defendant, but the summary order became final and conclusive upon the expiration of the period of request for formal trial under Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and applied Article 30 of the former Criminal Procedure Act to the defendant for the same reason as the summary order under Article 31 of the former Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) and Kim Jin-ro (Presiding Justice)