beta
Main Issues
Whether the principal's trading act after the act of trading by an unauthorized representative constitutes embezzlement
Summary of Judgment
The act of selling and buying the land by the agent is not effective as an act of unauthorized Representation and thus the act of selling and selling the land by the defendant (owner) after the disposition of the sale of the original real estate by the unauthorized Agent is not subject to embezzlement, unless the power of attorney has been granted.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 130 and 355 of the Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant
No. Gong300
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Gwangju District Court 200
Text
This case is dismissed.
Reasons
This facts charged are as follows: (a) Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to retire at the same time from 28:00 to 1; (b) Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to enter into a sale contract for the same year with Nonindicted Party 1 and to sell the same 6: (c) Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to sell the same 6: (d) Nonindicted Party 1 and 3 were to sell the same 6: (e) Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to sell the same 6: (e) Nonindicted Party 1 were to sell the same 6: (e) Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to sell the same 6: (e) Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to sell the same 5-year land at the same time; (e) Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to sell the same 5-year land at the same time; (e) Nonindicted Party 2 were to exchange the same 50-year land at that time; and (e) Nonindicted Party 28880-year.
Thus, in the exhibition, Nonindicted Party 2's act of selling and selling this parcel of land under the premise that he was granted the right of representation from the Defendant, is an act of unauthorized Representation by Nonindicted Party 2, and such act is not effective against the Defendant, who is the principal. Therefore, the Defendant's act of selling and selling this parcel of land to Nonindicted Party 1 is not ultimately constituted a crime. Thus, the Defendant's act of selling and selling this parcel of land to Nonindicted Party 1 shall be decided not to be guilty of the Defendant under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the indictment against the lower court, which is the same, is without merit.
Judges Yoon-chul (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong, and Hongnam