(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.10 2018노1883 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.10 2018노1883

무고

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The contents of the Defendant’s complaint do not constitute a false fact.

The Defendant did not agree to supplement the brokerage column of the primary contract for the purchase and sale of each of the lands listed in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant land”).

In addition, Korea is merely mediating F, a seller, in connection with the sale and purchase contract of the instant land, and did not act as a broker for the Defendant, the buyer, so the Defendant is not obliged to pay brokerage fees to E.

E refers to the second contract of the land in this case stating that “no person shall be liable for the buyer’s fees” and thereby filing a lawsuit seeking the payment of brokerage fees against the Defendant with the knowledge of the absence of the title to the claim against the Defendant.

B) The Defendant did not have any perception that the details of the complaint were false.

Defendant 1 erred in filing a suit under the foregoing circumstances;

In particular, although E voluntarily stated in the sales contract that it is "not liable for the buyer's fee," it is judged that it was hidden and the complained part is a fraud of lawsuit, and then filed a complaint with the lawyer following E.

The defendant's complaint focuses on the fraud of lawsuit, and the alteration of private documents is limited to the secondary part, which is based on objective judgment that E is not a broker of the defendant.

C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is as follows.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.04.19 2017고정182

-전주지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노1141

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.11 2017고정619

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.06.28 2017고단835

-광주지방법원 2018.02.22 2016고단6028