beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.25 2018노847

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, after the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, did not clearly know the fact that he/she committed an offense of boundary to neighbors, and did not have any intention to conceal the fact that he/she committed an offense of boundary.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, stated the following circumstances, i.e., the principal owner of the land G in the Dongdong-dong-si, where the land owned by the Defendant was located within the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant, that the building owned by the Defendant was invaded by one’s land boundary after newly constructing a house on the land in 2013, and surveying the land in 2013, and, at the same time, talks about the problem of bordering the Defendant.

On June 2, 2014, the Defendant is likely to slick due to the chickens installed by his wife in contact with the defense wall of the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant.

If there was a dispute, it would not go beyond the match.

The place to be stuffed shall be set away by the boundary.

The Defendant stated that “I will bring about the result of the survey.”

One's own survey is the surveying and stuffing in the cadastral construction work.

If we believe that it would not be possible, I would like to see again under both sides of the survey, and the defendant did not speak.

In light of the fact that the defendant stated ", as stated in the judgment of the court below, sufficiently recognizes the fact that he did not notify the victim of the possibility that his building, which is the object of sale, has invaded a neighboring land boundary, as stated in the judgment of the court below, is sufficiently recognized.