사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of the victim C, the Defendant purchased approximately 74,083 square meters of forest land D in the Namnam-gun, Namnam-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) and obtained a permit to newly build money on the said ground, and made a partnership contract with the victim dispose of it and to have the victim divide profits therefrom. The Defendant did not mislead the victim of the instant land into KRW 36,00,000,000 from G in the name of the victim’s wife and did not deceiving the victim.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged was that the Defendant came to know of the victim upon introduction by the branch of the police around September 2012.
On January 2013, the Defendant: “The land of this case is a land owned by the Defendant, and the land was rejected by the Defendant from the Defendant’s door to purchase KRW 25,000 per square.
Since the children of the representative in this paper are in need of urgency by entering the university, it would be possible to purchase the amount of 15,000 won per square year (the amount of 33,1650,000 won).
In addition, if the land is purchased and sold with the permission for the new construction of money company and fraternity company, a lot of profits can remain.
“Agreging”.
However, in fact, the above land was purchased from the F door around January 2, 2013 by E, and the actual value of the land was equivalent to KRW 56 million. However, although the actual value of the land was merely equivalent to KRW 56 million, the Defendant borrowed the above land in G name and purchased the said land in KRW 56 million, the Defendant thought that the victim acquired the difference by means of having the victim purchase the said land in a remarkably low amount from G as above.
As above, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim; (b) had the victim enter into a sales contract on the said land between G and G on February 26, 2013; (c) had the victim enter into a sales contract on the said land; (d) KRW 100 million on February 4, 2013; (e) KRW 200 million on February 22, 2013; and (e) KRW 52 million on June 17, 2013.