beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On April 1, 2015, the purchase and sale agreement (hereinafter “the instant transaction agreement”) drafted by the J and I on April 1, 2015 with respect to H lending 601 (hereinafter “H lending ”) located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “H lending ”) is not drafted for the purpose of security, but rather a contract written by I on the actual condition that the said real estate was sold in lots and that was written according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
In addition, the defendant loan 150 million won to the victim F as stated in the following facts, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim F to prepare the contract of this case for the purpose of securing it.
Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the fact that a sales contract, such as the content of the instant sales contract, exists, and that the Defendant attempted to obtain H lending 601 by deceiving F by deceiving F, thereby misunderstanding the fact or misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. The sentence that the court below rendered by the court below on the ground that the sentencing unfair is unfair is too unreasonable.
2. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) heard the horses from E Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant on the third floor 502 of Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) sought from F to lend KRW 150 million to construction cost; and (c) was aware that the Defendant would have received substitute payment in lieu of 16 households from H lending construction cost; and (d) the Defendant would lend construction cost if the Defendant prepared and offered a contract for the purchase and sale of 601 with the seal affixed by J, the representative of the resident, by designating the wife as the purchaser; (b) he/she would have borrowed a contract for the purchase and sale of 601 with the seal affixed by the principal of H lending reconstruction association; (c) it may be recognized that the actual money was actually paid, and thus, he/she would return the KRW 230 million to J account under his/her name, and if so, he/she would return it be KRW 1500 million.
However, the defendant received the above transaction agreement from F.