사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant deceivings the victim as if he were to transfer legitimate detailed business rights; (b) it does not violate the intention of the managing body of the building; and (c) thus, it is not clear that the prosecutor uses legitimate three business rights (the three business rights without the permission of the managing body of the building are illegal at the time when the Defendant transfers the three business rights to the complainant). However, as seen earlier, the Defendant transferred the three business rights that the Defendant may lose its business rights according to the decision of the managing body of the building without any special explanation of the risks to the complainant.
The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant, even though it acquired money in the name of the premium, is illegal.
2. Determination
A. Since it is common under the premise of the understanding of the management entity of a building on the three parking lots in a specific building, there are risks that the three business rights themselves may be lost according to the decision of the management entity of the building, and those who wish to acquire such three business rights are also aware of such risks.
It is reasonable to view it.
Therefore, the mere fact that the transferor did not explain the above risk in the process of transferring and taking over the taxable business right cannot be deemed as a deception by omission as a matter of course. Even if the transferee did not properly recognize such risk, the transferee acquired the taxable business right without recognizing it.
Even if there is a problem of mistake in the civil law, it will be most cases.
However, exceptional cases are the same.