The case holding that the act of transferring the registration of transfer of ownership by forging a document constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

Even in cases where a public official forges a certificate of redemption and uses it to a third party as if he/she completed a lawful distribution of the state-owned land which has not been distributed in violation of his/her duties and completed the redemption, such registration is defective as the reason for the registration is not lost, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the State has caused damage to the State.

Articles 356 and 355 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (Law No. 68594, 647, 1236), Daegu District Court of the first instance

Of the judgment below, the part of conviction against Defendant 1 and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed.

A defendant, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

As regards Defendant 1, 175 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 170 days shall be included in the original sentence, respectively.

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal against Defendant 1 by the public prosecutor is that the court below found Defendant 1 not guilty on the ground that there was no damage to the State as a result of the fact of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged against the Defendant, but the court below found Defendant 1 not guilty on the ground that there was no damage to the State, and it cannot be said that there was no property damage to the State because the pertinent repayment certificate was forged and the name of the registration was transferred to another in the form of legitimate distribution. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational breach of trust, and the summary of the grounds for appeal against Defendant 2 by the public prosecutor against Defendant 2 is unreasonable, since the sentencing of the court below sentenced Defendant 1 to imprisonment with prison labor for the same defendant is too unreasonable. The summary of

No. 1 and the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant forged the certificate of repayment at least eight times before and after, among them, the facts constituting the 1st judgment, which was stated in the original judgment, are not committed by the same defendant, but which is so-called crime in collusion with the defendant 1, 2, and 1 on the judgment of the court below. The facts constituting the 1nd judgment on the judgment of the court below are as follows: since the facts constituting the 1st judgment on the judgment of the court below are actually distributed the land in question to the non-indicted 2 and are completed at the same time, it is not forged that the above defendant issued the certificate

The second point is that the defendant only delivered a forged redemption certificate to the person who requested it, and the person who received it directly applies for registration by using it, or requested registration procedure to the judicial secretary. Thus, the defendant cannot use the forged redemption certificate and the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the crime of exercising it. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the above crime that the defendant exercised a forged redemption certificate and made it enter the false facts in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and made it available for keeping it.

Point 3, in light of the circumstances of the crime, the sentencing of the court below that sentenced the imprisonment of 4 years to the defendant is too inappropriate;

The gist of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 is that the case where the defendant 3 committed an act in the manner of distributing farmland among the criminal facts committed against the defendant is not committed at all by the defendant. However, in comparison with the fact-finding of the court below, the case where the defendant committed an act in the manner of not-owned land, or it is no longer possible for the defendant 3 to delegate a certificate of redemption to the Dong in the court below, with the knowledge that the defendant's act in the case where the defendant committed the act in the manner of not-owned land, or it is no longer possible for the defendant 3 to delegate a certificate of redemption, and the defendant committed the crime in this case by forging the certificate of sale, and the defendant surrenders himself to the investigation agency as the case in this case, and there are many other circumstances, the sentencing of the court below which sentenced the defendant 5-year punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable. Accordingly, in light of the fact-finding of the court below and the fact-finding of the defendant's act in this regard, the remaining fact-finding of the defendant's defendant's appeal and the defendant's attorney's appeal are too unfair.

First, as to the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor, even though Defendant 1 violated his duties and caused a third party to possess the ownership on the register as if the state-owned land in question was legitimately distributed and the redemption was completed, the registration is not only the reason for the registration, but also it is not consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, the third party's actual acquisition of ownership and loss of ownership is not the state, so property damage cannot be caused by the state. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the violation of occupational duty among the facts charged against the defendant for this reason is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of occupational breach of trust, and the sentencing of the court below against the defendant 2 is not recognized to be unfair because it is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances.

Next, in full view of Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal on mistake of facts among the grounds of appeal, as shown in the subsequent decision, it is sufficient to recognize the part of the lawsuit in the facts acknowledged by the court below as it is, and therefore, there is no argument on this point.

Finally, with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing among the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel Kim Jong-sung and his defense counsel, Defendant 1’s appeal is the first offense, and damage from this case was somewhat recovered. According to Defendant 2’s statement in the party process and the testimony by Nonindicted 3 (Police Officer) as to the testimony by the witness Nonindicted 2, Defendant 2 himself can recognize the facts that he voluntarily surrendered to the investigative agency when he became aware of the facts of this case. Accordingly, considering the character and behavior and environment of the Defendant, the motive and means of this case, the motive and means of this case, the circumstances after the crime, and all other circumstances revealed in the records, Defendant 1’s sentencing of the court below sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 5 years is too unfair, and therefore, there is a good reason to discuss this point.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant et al. return to the reason that the appeal by the defendant et al. is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1 and the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 shall be reversed and remanded.

In addition to the fact-finding that the defendant et al. admitted as a party member, the defendant et al.'s statements during the party process as evidence are the same as that of the court below. Thus, this is cited in this case.

법률에 비추건대, 피고인등의 판시소위중 각 공문서위조의 점은 형법 제225조 ( 제30조 )에, 각 위조공문서행사의 점은 동법 제229조 , 제225조 에, 각 공정증서원본불실기재의 점은 동법 제228조 제1항 에, 각 그 행사의 점은 동법 제229조 , 제228조 제1항 에, 상습사기( 피고인 2)의 점은 동법 제351조 , 제347조 제1항 에 각 해당하는 바, 위 공정증서원본불실기재 동행사 상습사기죄의 각 소정형중 징역형을 선택하고 피고인 1에 대한 원판결 판시 제1의 ⑺㈏의 위조공문서 일괄행사의 소위는 한개의 행위가 수개의 죄에 해당하는 상상적 경합범이므로 형법 제40조 , 제50조 제3항 에 의하여 무거운 수분배자 이말술로 된 위조상환증서행사죄의 정한 형으로 처벌한 것이고 또 피고인등의 이상 각 소위는 형법 제37조 전단 의 경합점이므로 동법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 제2항 , 제3항 에 따라 피고인 1에 대하여는 그 형과 죄질이 가장 중하다고 인정되는 판시 제1의 ⑷㈏ 위조공문서행사죄의 정한 형에 또 피고인 2에 대하여는 형이 가장 무거운 판시 상습사기죄의 형에 각각 경합범가중을 한 형기 범위내에서 피고인등을 공히 징역 2년에 각 처하고 형법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전의 구금일수중 피고인 1에 대하여는 175일을, 피고인 2에 대하여는 170일 위 본형에 각 산입한다.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)