사기미수
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for one year, respectively.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The victim of mistake of facts is not a genuine lessee but a mere resident who, in order to obtain a loan as a security, only made an agreement that I would not claim a right after the loan in its own name while preparing a back contract in order to obtain a loan as a security, and thus, was awarded a favorable judgment in an unjust manner even if Defendant B did not hold a claim for the refund of a lease deposit, while Defendant A was a true creditor who lent Defendant B a deposit amount of KRW 173 million to Defendant B, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on Defendant A, 1 year of suspended execution, 2 years of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on Defendant B, 2 years of suspended execution, 4 years of community service, 160 hours of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below.
1) On October 2004, the victim E, under the name of this mother, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 18 million and the lease term of KRW 24 months from Defendant B, the name of this mother, E, set forth the 101 studio house 101 (hereinafter “101”) on the ground of the Yancheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “101”), which was owned by Defendant B, but on August 2005, again entered into a lease contract with Defendant B under his own name (the lease deposit is the same amount of KRW 18 million and the lease term is 24 months from the date of the recontract). However, even though the lease term expires, Defendant B did not return the deposit, the victim filed a lawsuit against the victim claiming the refund of the deposit on September 18, 2007.
(former District Court 2007Gaso79097). 3 The argument of the above lawsuit was concluded, and June 11, 2008, the date of which the adjudication was set and its proceedings were resumed, and Defendant B, the fraud of Defendant B, is the defendant B.