beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.12.13 2016고단1392

사기미수

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

The Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Suwon prison on April 3, 2013. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant is a repeated offender whose execution of the sentence was terminated on December 5, 2014.

[Criminal facts]

1. On April 7, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for selling the instant land to G, Defendant, and H at KRW 315.8 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) in the form of both representation around April 7, 2011, upon delegation of the sale of E, E, and F land (hereinafter “instant land”).

On the other hand, around May 18, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract on behalf of the victim to sell the I forest land of Ischeon-si, the victim, to the non-party J and two others. The Defendant received down payment and intermediate payment from J in accordance with the above contract, and embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 110 million among them.

Around September 15, 2011, the victim who became aware of the embezzlement of the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant with the investigative agency, and the Defendant had G pay KRW 50 million to the victim immediately after September 16, 201, the following day: (a) around October 27, 2011, the victim made a written agreement with the victim on the condition that he/she will register ownership transfer (for each case, KRW 110 million) of the instant sales contract with H on the condition that he/she would register ownership transfer (for each case, KRW 10 million).

Pursuant to the terms of the above agreement, the instant sales contract was rescinded, and the victim completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the said D land to H around November 4, 201, and the victim was delivered from G around January 12, 2012.

The amount of KRW 80 million was returned.

Under the premise that the instant sales contract was rescinded, the Defendant was not reinstated to the victim the ownership of the said D land that was transferred under the name of H, and the Defendant and H were indicted for fraud on the ground that the ownership transferred in the instant H had changed due to deception by the victim, and the ownership transferred in the instant H had changed.

In addition, the Defendant and H.