beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case as to the transfer of each land owned by the victim by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
The summary of the facts charged in this case is that even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price as agreed upon even if he was invested in the instant land from the victim F, the Defendant would have to build a new factory by the victim in the E office located in Scheon-si D around January 28, 2009, and the victim would have invested the land G, H, and I (hereinafter “the instant land”) into the factory site. The Defendant would have received a loan of the factory building as security after the new construction of the factory and pay KRW 70 million of the land price. The Defendant proposed to the effect that “A company (hereinafter “C”) would have to build a new factory in the E office located in Scheon-si D.”
The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received ownership of each of the instant land from the victim around January 30, 2009.
The lower court determined that the agreement between the Defendant and the victim stated that the Defendant obtained a loan as security and paid the victim the land price of KRW 70 million, and the Defendant paid the construction cost of the above new factory to L, and the above factory was actually carried out by the second floor slve construction, and the Defendant could not complete the construction and eventually make it impossible to pay the land price to the victim. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the criminal intent to commit fraud at the time of the instant case, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a criminal intent to commit fraud.