beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants, as if they were to transfer the ownership of Qu-gun Qu-gun to H; and (b) defrauded the nominal money of the purchase price
2. The summary of the facts charged is the person who works as an insurance solicitor for the interest of the representative E company, and the defendant B was the representative director of E company.
On February 2, 2010, Defendants show “The E consulting investment guide for Co., Ltd.” to H, a corporation operating Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H (W, 78 years old) on the early February 2, 2010, and “The Defendants are running a business to attract land of high investment value to VIPs.”
The sports Yangyang-gun Q land (hereinafter “instant land”) concluded that it creates economic value exceeding 30% each year, and concluded that if the sales price is KRW 480 million, which is 60% of the current market price, the sales price shall be KRW 480,000,000,000, in accordance with the joint purchase procedures in the E-investment guide document, the company will complete the registration of ownership transfer by taking charge of the division, authorization, permission, cadastral adjustment, and ownership transfer registration.
However, in fact, the Defendants received KRW 480 million from H as the purchase price, and intended to use the instant land in the name of Defendant A’s husband F, as the purchase price and the purchase price for the purchase of land outside K located in Gyeonggi-gun. The Defendants did not have any intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the instant land to H.
Nevertheless, on April 7, 2010, the Defendants deceiving H as if they were to act as an agent in the sales contract for the instant land, such as preparing and delivering a sales contract with H as the purchaser of the instant land at the unclaimed hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu as of April 7, 2010, and received KRW 480,000,000 from H as the purchase price.
3. The lower court’s judgment may find the following circumstances based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.