beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who works as a solicitor for interest insurance of the representative EF, and the defendant B was the representative director of (ju) E real estate consulting.
On February 2, 2010, the Defendants shown the “(State) E (E) consulting investment guide” to the victim at I Co., Ltd. in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G located (n, 78 years old). “The Defendants are running a business of selling only the land with a high investment value on both sides and selling it to VIPs. G land in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “sale land in this case”) is the land that creates an economic value of at least 30% each year. However, if the purchase price is 60% of the current market price, the Defendants will complete the registration of the transfer of ownership of the land in this case by being entrusted with all of the affairs of divided authorization and permission and the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with the procedures for joint purchase of the (State) E (E) investment guide.
“A false representation was made.”
However, in fact, the Defendants received KRW 480 million from the injured party as the purchase price, and intended to use the instant land in the name of Defendant A’s husband F, and the purchase price for the purchase of land outside of the case in the Yangyang-gun of Gyeonggi-do. There was no intention or ability to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the injured party.
Nevertheless, on April 7, 2010, the Defendants: (a) drafted and delivered a sales contract with the victim as the purchaser of the instant land at a hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, by deceiving the victim as if they were acting for a sales contract for the instant land; and (b) issued KRW 480 million from the victim as the purchase price.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to have reasonable doubt.