사기
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated C (hereinafter “C”) established for the purpose of real estate sales business, etc.
On June 20, 201, the Defendant sold 400 square meters in front portion of the C-owned forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the victim E at the office in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on June 20, 201, to the victim E (hereinafter “C-owned forest”) at KRW 2.50,000 per square meter. The instant forest is planned to be removed from the national highway No. 70 in the future, and the land value is three times times. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the amount of the claim for provisional attachment by creditors G, which was set on the said forest and fields, would be immediately cancelled if the said forest and fields are sold.”
However, in fact, the real estate of this case was only 400 square meters that could not be sold in installments and exclusively be sold in the share of the entire land, even if the national highways No. 70 are relocated to another national highway with a considerable distance from the planned 70 national highways, and there was little possibility of misunderstanding the land value, and further, the division of the real estate of this case was limited.
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim as the down payment on the same day as the down payment, KRW 75 million as the intermediate payment on June 21, 201, and KRW 20 million as the name of the remainder and the registration tax on June 22, 201, respectively, to the deposit account in the name of C.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. Determination
A. Although the relevant legal principles are somewhat exaggerated or false in advertising and advertising of goods, if it is possible to be recognized as time in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle, it cannot be said that the deception was made. Also, the detailed facts about important matters in the transaction should be notified in a manner that is to be criticized in light of the duty of good faith and good faith. However, only if it is necessary to notify false facts in a manner that is to the extent of being criticized in light of
Supreme Court Decision 2010.10