특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant 1 did not deceiving E or the victim Q as stated in the judgment of the court below, and even if the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud, the court below found the Defendant guilty differently, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1), although the market price of the land acquired by deceit as stated in the facts charged can be fully recognized as one million won per square, the court below found the market price of the above land as "influence of the market price" and found the defendant not guilty of the violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal
In the first instance trial, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor: (a) specified the facts charged in the case of 2015 Gohap 304 as the Defendant promised to E; (b) specified the time of real estate transfer as “ around May 20, 2014; (c) stated the facts charged in the case of 2015 Gohap 318 in the judgment of the court below to clarify the contents of the Defendant’s act by stating the statement made by the Defendant to the victim; and (d) applied for the amendment of the indictment from “ around May 14, 2014” to “ around April 23, 2014,” following witness Q Q.’s testimony, the date and time of the Defendant’s statement to the victim, among the facts charged in the case of 2015 Gohap 318, applied for the amendment of the indictment.”
Inasmuch as the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial by permitting the application for changes in the bill of indictment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the facts charged by the court below.