사기등
The judgment below
The part of not guilty of fraud and intimidation about the amount of 370 million won by fraud is not guilty.
1. According to the statement of the victim F, L, and V, which correspond to each of the facts charged in the instant case, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant acquired the victim’s pecuniary advantage in the amount of KRW 370 million by deceiving the victim by acquiring the ownership transfer registration; (b) acquired the victim’s pecuniary advantage in the amount of KRW 370 million by deceiving the victim; and (c) the victim “to leave the land.”
I will die.
Although the court below found the defendant guilty of all the above facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court determined as to the fraud of KRW 20 million by deception, which was based on the evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, sent to the Defendant by having Q from the Nonghyup located in Hanyang Hospital on September 26, 2012, Q receive KRW 10 million in cash and deliver it to the same place at the same time, and by having Q Q receive KRW 10 million in cash from the Agricultural Cooperatives located in Hanyang Hospital on October 5, 2012.
“A statement made by Q to the same effect as above with F’s statement. The above F’s statement changed from the victim’s account, which may be known through financial data, such as the letter of inquiry about each of the financial information submitted by the Nam branch in Seoul, Seoul, the Nam branch, and so on. It cannot be trusted as it is. Q’s statement is inconsistent with the investigative agency’s statement and the statement in the original trial, and it is not consistent with the contents of the above financial data, and it cannot be trusted as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged, and not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.
In full view of the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is deemed to have been made.