logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.07.04 2014노114
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently asserts that the victim H was released from provisional seizure by deceiving the defendant, and that I stated that the defendant raised an objection against provisional seizure, that there was no reason to revoke provisional seizure without any other security, and on the other hand, there was sufficient reason to demand the victim to revoke provisional seizure due to the lack of financial circumstances at the time. In light of the fact that the defendant had sufficient reason to demand the release of provisional seizure by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in the selective charge of this case, thereby allowing him to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 270,00,000 (or KRW 170,000,000) as stated in the selective charge of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is to induce the victim H to cancel the provisional attachment of E Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) Nos. 202, 302, and 402, and the Defendant acquired a benefit equivalent to KRW 270 million from the owner of the instant apartment (as a matter of course, KRW 170 million).

B. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, acknowledged the following: (a) the process of cancellation of the provisional attachment registration for the instant apartment 202, 302, 402, 502, 602, and 702 of the instant apartment 202, etc. (hereinafter “the instant apartment 202”) and the relation between the alteration of the limited real right, etc. on the instant apartment 202, etc. as well as the above 601; and (b) if H had the Defendant cancelled the provisional attachment on the instant apartment 202, 302, 402, and 602, the Defendant provided the instant apartment 601 as collateral and paid KRW 300 million in cash with the Defendant’s loan; and (c) if the instant apartment 202, 302, and 402 had the Defendant cancelled the provisional attachment on the instant apartment 202, 601.

arrow