beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles (related to the 2015 Highest 708 case) 1) The Defendants acquired money from the victim K (the Defendants) by deceiving the victim K on the condition that the contract was concluded, and the Defendants did not borrow money from the victim K on the condition that the contract was concluded, and the period of payment for the borrowed money was three months, thereby deceiving the victim K to borrow the borrowed money.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) Defendant A was aware of the fact that: (a) Defendant A was planning to pay the construction cost when the Victim K completes the construction work; (b) Defendant A was not able to pay the construction cost by suspending the construction work; and (c) Defendant A was able to pay the construction cost only with the loan or the sale price at the time of concluding the construction contract.
B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment with labor for Defendant A, and six months of imprisonment with labor for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.
A) Defendants and G’s progress of the implementation of the hanok Building Project: ① Defendant A’s president of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); G was the former president of F; Defendant B was the former duties of F; Defendant A and G accepted F around October 2013; and Defendant A and G had no financial resources at the time of acquisition.
② On November 26, 2013, Defendant A purchased from J to 1,909,500,000 (a down payment of KRW 30,000,00) each of the instant lands. At the time, Defendant A, at the time, intended to take over the secured obligation of collateral security ( approximately KRW 1,400,000,000), which was established on each of the instant lands, to pay the remainder of the purchase price as the amount of additional loans, and did not have any other capability to pay the purchase price.
③ The Defendants were unable to pay the down payment to J at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, and the contract was concluded.