Whether the seller who has not received part of the balance is the subject of the crime of breach of trust in case of double transfer of the object of sale.

If the seller receives part of the down payment, the intermediate payment, and the remainder, the seller does not have the right to unilaterally rescind the sales contract and at the same time bears the duty to register the ownership transfer to the buyer, so the seller is the subject of the breach of trust in the position of dealing with

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Hong Hong-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 81No1261 delivered on November 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the facts of the judgment (in particular, the fact that the sales contract had been in force without the termination of the agreement) are lawful, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

(2) As determined by the court below, if the defendant, the seller under this case's sales contract, received part of the down payment, intermediate payment, and the remainder from the actual buyer's situation, the defendant unilaterally does not have the right to rescind the sales contract, and at the same time, the defendant is obligated to perform the registration of ownership transfer so that the purchaser can acquire full ownership at the same time, so this duty of the defendant, who is the person liable for registration, is part of the business for the buyer's acquisition of ownership. In this regard, the defendant is the subject of the crime of breach of trust in the status of managing the business of the above situation. In this regard, the defendant is the subject of the crime of breach of trust in the status of managing the business of the above situation, and the defendant was caused damage to the buyer's own value due to transfer of provisional registration and the registration of ownership transfer at the time of the original sale. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)