사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim, who is the owner of neighboring land, tried to purchase shares equivalent to 60m2 of the Defendant’s share in the 10,091m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the partition for the purpose of opening access roads to his own land. However, in the entire land of this case, the mortgage (debtor A, maximum debt amount) was set at agricultural cooperative, and the ownership of the Defendant A was set at 1/3 of the instant land, the remainder of which is 2/3 ownership, and N’s mortgage (the maximum debt amount 220,000,000 won) other than the provisional registration of L, M, and N’s mortgage (the maximum debt amount) which is the creditor of the instant land, without explaining the ownership of the instant land as above, and without making efforts to cancel it, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of the instant purchase contract by deceiting the down payment.
2. Determination
A. The instant sales contract does not purchase a specific part of land, but purchased shares equivalent to 660 square meters among Defendant A’s shares. If co-owners exercise the right to claim partition of co-owned property, thereby taking advantage of the favorable position in securing land for access roads. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants deceiving the victim to purchase the share of the instant land while making such remarks.
B. Furthermore, since the victim was well aware of the legal relationship established for the share of the instant land at the time of the sales contract, and demanded to cancel the remaining payment until the remainder is paid, the amount of public injury claims is terminated by the sales contract until the remainder is paid.