beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.13 2013노2518

사기방조

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant introduced the instant forest land to the victim and received allowances equivalent to 10% of the purchase price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm at all the ownership relationship of the instant forest land.

In addition, D's explanation on the value of the forest of this case was not confirmed to be true.

In light of this point, it is recognized that at least there is a dolusor intention for aiding and abetting D's frauds.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal intent of aiding and abetting.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case was from April 2009 to the Defendant as a business employee of “(ju) E”, a real estate business entity planning the management of D in the 7th floor of Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.

D In the name of the said company, the Plaintiff did not have any objective circumstance on the development prospects, such as the fact that the contract deposit of FY 49,587§³ in Gyeonggi-do was concluded in KRW 50 million, and the price of KRW 260,000,000,000, and the ownership transfer registration was not made. In addition, the registration of Baduk subdivision of forest land was de facto impossible, and there was no objective circumstance on the development prospects, such as the termination of the adjacent G in the military area and development of the skiing site or the expansion of roads, and the Defendant was well aware of such fact through D and employees

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while attracting D to purchase the above development, received education from D that the contract would receive 10% of the purchase price as an allowance when the contract was concluded, had the Defendant sufficiently aware that it was a fraudulent act without any grounds for the above education content, and had the purchaser attracts the purchaser while recognizing that it was a fraudulent act without any grounds for the above education content;

A. On July 25, 2009, the defendant at the office of the above company around July 25, 2009, the 500 square meters of the above forest land was developed in 40 million won to the victim H (n, 52 years of age) with deep friendship. G, the road was expanded, and the logistics complex is located in adjacent parts.