beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.08 2015노2616

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant could recognize the fact that he deceptioned the victim K as stated in the facts charged of this case and acquired a total of KRW 400 million as the deposit money for lease.

2. Determination

A. On September 1, 2007, the summary of the facts charged, at E Office located in Nam-si, Namyang-si, around 11:30 on September 1, 2007, the Defendant: (a) was anticipated to be included in the urban planning road some of the land owned by the Defendant, the land owned by the State, H land owned by the State, and I ditches; (b) as the building was occupied and used without permission for occupation and use; (c) the building was already illegally extended and it was impossible to extend the building as a parking lot or access road; and (d) even if it was no longer possible to use the building as a parking lot due to the restriction on the floor area ratio, the Defendant leased the building to the victim K, and “the land surrounding the building can be used as a site for the access road and parking lot; and (d) a building equivalent to approximately KRW 150 square meters of the floor area after the building can be installed at the same time by lawful extension.”

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, entered into a lease agreement on the above building with the victim, and acquired KRW 100 million from tin as a security deposit, and acquired KRW 300 million in total by remitting KRW 400 million around September 3, 2007.

B. On September 1, 2007, the lower court determined as follows: ① The victim, on September 1, 2007, set the lease term of KRW 400 million from September 3, 2007 to September 2, 2010, on the land and buildings located in F in Nam-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”).