사기
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding the facts) (the value of the land in this case was merely KRW 600 million to F, and there was no deception that the sale price of the land in this case was KRW 600 million. Even if the sale price of the land in this case was KRW 300 million, it is not possible to give notice of the purchase price of the land in this case due to the reason that the sale price of the land in this case could not have any influence on the legal relationship due to the sale and purchase, and thus, it cannot be a deception against the victim. The purchase price of the land in this case paid by the victim cannot be said to be a deception against the victim. The 192 million won paid by the victim was used as both the purchase price of the land in this case, real estate brokerage commission, the price of the land in public land in this case and the cost of the certified judicial scrivener and the cost of the land in this case, and the defendants acquired 192 million won from the victim.
The judgment of the court below that made the seal contains an error of mistake of facts.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendants’ deception 1) acknowledged that the Defendants deceptioned the victim to the extent that the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 600 million.
① The F, a de facto spouse of the victim of the dynamic interest of Defendant A, was present at the court of original trial as a witness, and stated that “B before the conclusion of the sales contract of the instant land, the purchase and sale price of the instant land was 60 million won (500 million won per square year x 1,200 square meters) from the Defendants.”
In addition, Defendant B asked the instant land as co-ownership in half-half of his share, and Defendant B told that “If she later scarkes and scars together with the scarbs, she would be 600 square meters or more, she would be able to go against the farmland source, and she would do so on the document because she would do so on the document.”
“The statement was made”.
(2) Victim G shall be the original judgment.