logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노140
사기미수
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant transferred only the period of time, such as the name of J on the land I and H, to the Defendant, subject to the repayment of the obligation to J, and the Defendant received a transfer from J to the provisional registration on the land in the female city (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of female-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant demanded a court to demand a distribution as the holder of the registered right.

As the Defendant, with respect to the instant land, received a demand for distribution with knowledge that he/she has no substantive right, the Defendant may be aware of his/her intention by deception, and the attempted crime is established.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant, even though he was well aware of the lack of substantive rights as a person holding a provisional registration right to the land of this case, deceiving the court to take a demand for distribution by deceiving the court, and there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

In full view of the circumstance that the Defendant was subject to the transfer of provisional registration with respect to the three parcels of land including the instant land from J, the circumstance that the Defendant did not separately set the scope of transfer, including the fact that the Defendant would exclude the instant land in the process of provisional registration transfer, and the circumstance that the Defendant actually repaid the Defendant’s debt to J, the Defendant had the intention to acquire dividends

It is difficult to see it.

We do not accept the prosecutor's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow