사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant: (a) purchased land (referring to land in general referred to as “land” in f and G land in Gyeong-gun; hereinafter the same shall apply) in KRW 1 million per square year to E, a real operator of the victim company (hereinafter the victim company or E, referred to as “victim”); (b) did not wish to transfer the purchase price as it is; and (c) the victim did not reselled land in KRW 1 million per square year by requesting a price lower than the current market price.
As a party to a resale contract, the defendant and the victim are in the position of the upper half of the understanding that they should promote their own interest as much as possible, and how much the defendant purchased the land is irrelevant to the matters that interfere with the realization of rights under the contract for sale and purchase, so there was no obligation to notify the victim
The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court that the victim did not possess the purchase price of the land at the lower court to have determined the error of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding sentencing: (i) the victim consistently heard from the Defendant that “the victim purchased the land at KRW 1 million per square, and would resell the said amount as it is,” and concluded a resale contract with the said amount.
(2) Article 1 of the Land Resale Contract prepared by the Defendant and the Victim Company on October 17, 2013 states that “The purpose of this contract is to succeed to the original terms and conditions of the contract concluded by the Defendant from the owner of the real estate so that the contract can be completed by succeeding to the victim company as they are,” and ③ as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant’s profits from the resale will be recognized if the victim resells the land in KRW one million per square year.
However, it seems that the defendant did not pay the cost of resale separately.