beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (De facto M) sold 2/3 shares of the Plaintiff’s land north-gu C and D (hereinafter “instant land”) at the port of port to the victim, the amount of KRW 378,00,000, which Defendant A received is merely pure land sale price, and it does not include the construction cost of electric source housing that Defendant A newly built on the above land for the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the above amount includes the construction cost of two bonds for the electric house. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant B), although Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to commit the instant fraud, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the instant facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A may sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case and deceiving the property.
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is without merit.
① According to the record, Defendant A sold 2/3 shares of the instant land, which was owned by G as of October 22, 2016, to the victim, and received KRW 378,00,000 from the victim; thereafter, Defendant A immediately completed the registration of ownership transfer from G as to the said shares of land; at the time of the sale, Defendant A had the victim completed the construction of the entire house on the said land; and Defendant A also recognized the fact that at the time of the sale, Defendant A had the owner completed the construction of the entire house on the said land.