beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, who is guilty of the facts, merely received 2 million won out of 5 million won of the down payment of the real estate sales and purchase of real estate from C, which is the cause of supporting the real estate brokerage, and was embezzled by C. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that C was fully paid the down payment of 5 million won.
B. The punishment of a fine of KRW 4 million sentenced by the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court’s assertion of factual misunderstanding: (i) the buyer’s agent F, official broker J, and mediation assistant C, who was present in the process of preparing the instant real estate sale and purchase contract, were present in the lower court as a witness at the lower court and the Defendant received the F’s check of KRW 5,00,000 at the face value at that place.
The testimony was made; ② The seal of the defendant is affixed to the statement that “five million won of the down payment shall be paid at the time of the contract and shall be zero” of the real estate sales contract of this case; ② The defendant asked for the reasons why the real estate sales contract of this case was destroyed in the buyer’s advertisement E; ② The defendant asked for the police officer’s question about the reason why the contract of this case was destroyed in the buyer’s advertisement E; ③ the defendant’s name and seal are affixed to the seller’s column for the confirmation letter of contract rescission, stating that the contract of this case was rescinded and the down payment was destroyed unilaterally; ③ the contract cancellation document of this case was cancelled and the down payment was returned to the buyer’s name and seal. (In the related civil litigation, the defendant raised a forged defense against the cancellation of the contract of this case, but there was no evidence that there was any forgery different from the recognition of the identity of the seal). ④ The defendant's defense was rejected in the real estate sales contract of this case.