beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.12.05 2014노1192

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victims transferred the stores of the fourth floor of the building of this case from the defendant to the third floor of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant's failure to notify the victims of the fact that the defendant illegally changed the use of the third floor of the building of this case to the third floor of this case constitutes deception by omission, not only constitutes deception by omission, but also the defendant was likely to impose a non-performance penalty due to the above unlawful change of use at the time of the sub-lease of this case, and there was an existing debt to the victims, and there was no intention or ability to return each sub-lease of this case to the victims in light of the circumstances where the victims used the deposit received from the victims to repay the existing debt.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below 1) The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is a building E (hereinafter “instant building”) managed by the Young-ri D Management Body in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On May 26, 2007, a person operating the Fcxx on the third floor office of the instant building: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the victim H (n, 63 years old) who thought that the Defendant would be able to normally lease a Gcx connected to the Kcxx in operating the Kcxxx and the said restaurant on the condition that the lease period of one year, the lease deposit of ten million won, and the monthly rent of 600,000 won was paid to the said restaurant on the lease deposit basis; and (b) from March 28, 2011 to March 201, the victim H, I (n, South, 59 years old, J, 52 years old, and Lcx) received KRW 70,000,000 from the lessee on the lease deposit basis of the name of the lessee, such as the name of the third floor office of the instant building, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

However, on December 15, 2006, at the time of leasing a building from the management body, the fact that the instant building does not run call text businesses in the instant building, and related thereto.