beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) committed a breach of trust on May 3, 2010 with respect to the victim Q2, R and Echeon-si H, J, K, K, L, and M land (hereinafter “instant land”). At the time of entering into a sales contract on May 3, 2010, Defendant A had 250 million won for the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant land, and the intermediate payment was received on June 3, 2010, the secured debt of the right to collateral security remains 157 million won by discharging part of the secured debt of the said right to collateral security. On July 1, 2010, Defendant A completed the establishment registration of the right to collateral security amount of KRW 190 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 250 million with loans of KRW 190 million from the Dae Agricultural Cooperative.
Even if the amount of the secured debt at the time of the sales contract for the land of this case is reduced or less than the amount of the secured debt, it cannot be said that there was any damage to the victims, and it cannot be said that Defendant A had the intent to commit a crime of breach of trust.
In addition, even though the actual purchase price under the sales contract for the instant land was KRW 600,000,000 per square day, R asserted the purchase price of KRW 500,000 per square day as of June 15, 2010, and accordingly, Defendant A rescinded the sales contract for the instant land on June 22, 2010 and rescinded the sales contract on the ground that the remainder of the purchase price was unpaid on June 28, 2010.
Furthermore, the sales contract on the land of this case is not only a juristic act with a content that violates good morals and other social order, but also a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to Defendant A’s old-age, rashness, or inexperience.
Therefore, Defendant A’s breach of trust, which is premised on the validity of the instant contract, cannot be established.
(B) Defendant A, as indicated in the facts charged regarding the fabrication and uttering of private documents of this case, is related to the land of this case.