Acquisition of real estate provided for a crime of breach of trust due to double sale shall constitute the crime of acquisition of stolen property.

The stolen property, which is the object of the crime of stolen property under the Criminal Act, is a stolen property acquired due to an illegal act that causes infringement on the property right, and the victim has the right to request the return of the land. In this case, if the owner of the land who is responsible for making the ownership transfer registration to "A", sells it to "B in violation of his/her duties," and the ownership transfer registration is completed, the above real estate owner's acquisition of the property interest is a property interest, and the land which is provided for the crime of breach of trust is obtained by the crime of breach of trust, and therefore, the purchaser or the subsequent purchaser cannot be punished by the crime of breach of trust.

Defendant 1 and one other

Representative Prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutor's Office, Kim Nam-ok

Daegu District Court Decision 74No190 delivered on August 23, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor Kim Nam-ok of the Daegu District Prosecutor:

The judgment on the preparation of evidence is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding judge, and the records of a case are fixed and cannot be recognized to be in violation of the above legal principles, and the argument attached to the assertion of mistake cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and the stolen property which is the object of the crime of stolen property under the Criminal Act is an object obtained due to an illegal act which causes an infringement on the property right, and the victim has the right to request the return (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Do1804, Sept. 23, 1975). According to the facts established by the original judgment, although the joint defendant of the original judgment has the duty to register the transfer of ownership to the purchaser of the building site, he did not sell it to the defendant 1,120,000 won in violation of his duty, and obtains property benefits from the above price payment through the registration of the transfer of ownership, and he did not obtain property benefits from the above defendant 1, and thus, he cannot obtain property benefits from the above joint defendant 2's acquisition of the above building site.

Therefore, according to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jin-hee (Presiding Justice)