logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.02.11 2013노223
사기미수등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s attempted fraud, the lower court found the owner of the instant land as “I (I and Efriend N)” and found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the sales contract (Evidence No. 220 pages) on the instant land was forged on the ground that the sale and purchase contract (Evidence No. 220 pages) on the instant land was forged. Defendant A was guilty of mistake of facts. Defendant A around 1982, 257 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) As to the charge of perjury, Defendant A did not instigate a perjury to Defendant B after purchasing a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer.

B. As to Defendant B 1’s attempted fraud, the owner of the instant land is “I” with the domicile in “M” (former address: Goyang-gun M). Defendant A, the Defendants of K et al., the Defendants of the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration (Seoul District Court High Court Decision 2008Gahap10860), which was filed against the instant land, is “Wu-gun P of Gyeonggi-do (former address: Goyangyang-gu P),” and the said lawsuit filed by Defendant A was not the owner of the instant land, and there is no relation with the instant claim. 2) As to the above fact, Defendant B testified in the said lawsuit as the owner of the instant land, and there is no intention to commit the crime of perjury.

2. Determination

A. As to attempted fraud (Defendants) 1), in the so-called lawsuit fraud, the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, should have the same effect as the content of the victim’s dispositive act in lieu of the dispositive act. In other cases, there is no act of giving property by mistake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1153, Aug. 18, 1987) and such legal principle also applies to the case where the dispositive fraud is committed solely with the attempted offense. 2)

arrow