A. The time when the act of embezzlement was taken and the formation of concurrent crimes

(b) An ex post facto act of embezzlement;

A. If a person who shares another person's property provides a co-owner's land as security without the consent of co-owners and completes provisional registration, embezzlement does not constitute an attempted suspension, and if there is another person's act of realizing a new acquisition intent again after the provisional registration is cancelled, the two embezzlements are in concurrent crimes.

B. Since embezzlement is a crime in state, the disposal of the embezzlement conducted after the completion of the embezzlement act does not constitute a separate crime if it is within the scope that can be seen as having been evaluated by the embezzlement.

Articles 37, 39, 25, 26, 355, and 359 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

(B) the full number of attorneys-at-law and Kim In-law

Busan District Court Decision 78No2042 delivered on July 19, 1978

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

In addition, the number of defense counsel and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal are examined together (the facts recorded in the grounds of appeal by defense counsel Kim Jong-il are subsequent to the submission period, and it is considered to the extent of supplement in the above grounds of appeal)

The court below found the defendant guilty of 70,000 won of loan 5,50,000 won and 1,50,000 won of Kimchi as collateral for the defendant's loan of 287 90,000 won and 1,50,000 won in his sole name as to the land owned by Hanjin-gu Busan High-dong, Busan High-si and 287, and held the ownership transfer registration under the defendant's sole name as to the land. (1) On November 10, 1973, he borrowed 50,000 won from Kim Jong-dong and registered as a provisional registration on the same day, and (2) on February 15, 1974, he borrowed 2,00,000 won from Kim Jong-dong and then borrowed 17,000,0000 won as to the property of the defendant, which was the same as the defendant's property owner or the defendant's joint ownership of 97,000,000 won as collateral.

The above (1) facts are clear in the record that the above (1) facts borrowed money from the non-indicted Kim Jong-sik on November 10, 1973 and made a provisional registration on the site in the future, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence in the protocol that recognized the facts, and even after examining the records, the court below did not recognize that the defendant's act of embezzlement was committed by making a provisional registration on the site in the Kim Jong-si, and that the defendant cancelled the provisional registration on February 7, 1974 where a considerable period of time has elapsed, and again made a provisional registration on February 8, 1974, again made embezzlement again with the provisional registration on the non-indicted Gaok, and therefore, the so-called "the above (1)" of the defendant constitutes a separate crime of embezzlement from the crime of embezzlement for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and there is no reason to argue that the above act of embezzlement does not constitute an attempted crime of embezzlement, and that the defendant provided the above defendant's act of embezzlement to the defendant as collateral and did not constitute an attempted of embezzlement.

Accordingly, the appeal on the above (1) is groundless.

However, since the facts of the above paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) are in a state of health and embezzlement, the disposal of embezzlement after the completion of embezzlement is deemed to have been evaluated by the embezzlement, and if it is within the extent that it can be deemed to have been abandoned, it does not constitute a separate crime. In this case, the defendant borrowed 3 million won from the non-indicted 8's office on February 8, 1974 without the co-owner's consent and borrowed 3 million won from the non-indicted 1's office on the security and made a provisional registration on the site of this case in his name (the crime of final judgment is a final judgment) at that time, the crime of embezzlement has already been completed, and each of the above paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the defendant's office on July 12, 1974 after the completion of the embezzlement act constitutes a separate crime of embezzlement.

As such, the court below judged that the defendants' respective so-called of the above (2), (3), and (4) separately constituted embezzlement is an unlawful crime committed by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the act of involuntary death, and that this error shall have influenced the result of the original judgment, that is, the original judgment shall not be exempted from reversal from this point, and therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal regarding the above (2), (3), (4).

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)