Supreme Court Rules on Transfer of Public Certificates Linked to Housing Subscription Accounts... "Punishment Even If No Actual Contract After Winning"

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a subscription broker was given a public authentication certificate and a resident registration copy, the person must be punished for the completed offense of violating the Housing Act, even if they did not actually sign the contract after winning the apartment subscription.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) recently finalized the original court ruling that sentenced Yoo Mo, who was indicted for violating the Housing Act, to a fine of 10 million won.

The court stated the reason for dismissing the appeal was that "there was no error in the original court's judgment that violated the rules of logic and experience, exceeded the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstood the legal principles regarding the establishment of the offense of violating the Housing Act or the concept of voluntary abandonment of an attempt."

In April 2021, Yoo handed over the password of the public authentication certificate linked to the Housing Subscription Comprehensive Savings Account, a resident registration abstract, a seal certificate, and other documents to a broker and received 20 million won, then was prosecuted for violating the Housing Act.

Originally, Yoo received a proposal from brokers stating, "If you hand over the subscription savings account and the password of the public authentication certificate, we will pay you 20 million won, and after winning the apartment subscription, we will pay 20 million won at the time of contract, 20 million won when taking out a mid-term loan, and 40 million won when the resale restriction ends and the title is transferred."

Yoo actually won the subscription for an apartment in Dongtan New Town, Hwaseong, Gyeonggi Province, but did not actually sign the sales contract.

In court, Yoo argued that he only provided the password of the public authentication certificate related to the Housing Subscription Comprehensive Savings Account, which is a certificate of the subscription savings, and did not hand over the public authentication certificate or the savings account itself, so it cannot be considered as transferring the subscription savings certificate.

He also claimed that when the broker showed him the pre-prepared sales contract, he changed his mind and asked for the related documents to be returned, so it should be considered a voluntary abandonment of an attempt. According to Korean criminal law, in cases of voluntary abandonment of an attempt, where the perpetrator voluntarily stops the execution of the crime or prevents the occurrence of the result after starting the criminal act, the law mandates mitigation or exemption of punishment.

However, the first trial court ruled that "the offense of violating the Housing Act is completed at the moment of transferring the subscription savings certificate" and recognized Yoo's guilt for violating the Housing Act, sentencing him to a fine of 10 million won.

Previously, in June last year, the Supreme Court ruled that "the act of transferring or receiving the 'subscription savings certificate' under Article 65, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Housing Act includes the act of transferring or receiving the public authentication certificate linked to the bank where the Housing Subscription Comprehensive Savings Account is opened."

The court stated, "The defendant testified in court and to the investigative agency that he handed over his mobile phone to broker A and provided the password of the public authentication certificate, so it is considered that he transferred the public authentication certificate."

Regarding Yoo's claim of voluntary abandonment, the court said, "The offense of violating the Housing Act is completed at the moment of transferring the subscription savings certificate, and even if the defendant later changes his mind and returns the certificate or does not proceed to the sales contract, it is only a mitigating factor in sentencing and does not affect the already established crime."

Furthermore, "Although the defendant claims to have returned the subscription savings certificate, he admits that he did not return the 20 million won he received as compensation to the broker, so there is no mitigating factor in sentencing regarding this."

Yoo appealed the first trial ruling, but the second trial court also rejected his claims and dismissed the appeal.

The court judged, "Considering the facts or circumstances recognized or knowable from the evidence lawfully investigated by the original court, it can be sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant transferred the public authentication certificate related to the Housing Subscription Comprehensive Savings Account as stated in the original court's judgment."

The court cited the following reasons: ▲ The defendant initially told the police in the first call that he handed over the public authentication certificate to the broker, but during the suspect interrogation, he stated that he did not remember handing over the certificate but gave the phone and the password for credit checks via Toss and KakaoTalk, and thought the broker might have taken the certificate at that time; later, during another call with the police, he voluntarily added that although he previously said he did not give the certificate, it is likely he did transfer it. ▲ Broker A testified to the police that he received the subscription certificate from the defendant. ▲ Although the defendant did not apply for the subscription himself, an apartment subscription was made under his name and he won the apartment, which implies that the public authentication certificate must have been transferred before the subscription.

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.