beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion and the use of the perjury document, and the false entry of the authentic document into the authentic document.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The transfer contract (hereinafter “transfer contract of this case”) in the name of N as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below is merely a document prepared by F upon F’s request. In the case of a letter of payment in the name of N,O, P, Q (hereinafter “N, etc.”) stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, and a letter of delegation in the name of N, etc. stated in paragraph (3) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “the letter of delegation of this case”), and in the case of a letter of delegation in the name of N, etc. stated in paragraph (3) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the defendant did not participate in the preparation of the transfer contract of this case and the letter of payment.
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, including F’s statement, as to the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Price (Fraud), the defendant’s right to obtain apartment authorization and permission (hereinafter “the instant transfer contract”) from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), is not a formal contract, but has no intent or ability to pay the transfer price to the defendant properly at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract. Despite the lack of ability to purchase each land of this case, it is recognized that the defendant deceiving F to receive the authorization and permission right of this case from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant transfer contract”) and paid the remainder of the transfer price to H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “each land of this case”). However, even if the transfer price was not sufficiently capable of promoting the business, it is recognized that the transfer price was not sufficiently paid by F, and that the remainder of the transfer price was not paid by 20 million won.
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The occupation of the event of the above investigation document;