beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
The judgment below
Part of acquittal.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that the victim E by mistake of facts agreed to take over the superficies related to D from the Defendant, there was no fact that the contract was prepared, and there was no specific discussion about the terms of the contract, such as the acquisition price, the time of acquisition, the time of transfer of name, etc., the victim E does not have any reason to confirm whether the nominal owner of the superficies is the owner of the superficies while entering into the contract for acquisition of superficies with the Defendant, and if the Defendant thought that the superficies was transferred to the victim E, there was no reason to carry out the entrance construction at his own expense before the transfer, and the acquisition price of superficies was divided into several and unspecified amounts on several occasions in light of the general practice of transaction, it is difficult to reliable each statement made by H, F, E, and I, which conform to the facts of the judgment of the court below. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the fraud charges against the victim E by blocking this, and there was an error of law by misconceptioning the facts.
B. According to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, K did not receive KRW 10 million in cash from the Defendant as the vehicle price, and even according to the account transaction submitted by F, the Defendant did not deliver the vehicle price of KRW 10 million in cash to the vehicle with the vehicle with the vehicle enders. The Defendant submitted to the court the confirmation document that “The Defendant received cash KRW 10 million in the vehicle price from the Defendant as the vehicle price,” prepared by K upon the Defendant’s request, while seeking the payment of the vehicle price against F, is deceiving by false assertion and proof. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the charge of attempted fraud of this case.