beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) asserts that there was no fact that the Defendants stated that K and L claims were claims of the victim P were claims of the Defendants, and that there was no fact that the Defendants intended to transfer the above claims to P for KRW 230 million. However, according to the statement of P, W and R, the Defendants’ change in the lawsuit is false, and the Defendants’ claim is false, and that the Defendants deceptiond P to transfer the claims created by L and K to P for its own face amounting to KRW 230 million.
P did not have a reason to repay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on G land and building in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and on the end of the Defendants, the said debt was repaid with the knowledge that the instant real estate could be acquired at the end of the Defendants, and thus, the causal relationship between the act of deception and the act of disposal is recognized.
Since K and L claims were changed into distributable bonds according to P's repayment of debt, it is the acquisition of property benefits in fraud.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. In the trial of a party, the ex officio determination prosecutor stated in the facts charged of the instant case that “I would like to purchase the instant real estate at a low price of KRW 730 million,” and that “I would like to actively assist P or P to obtain a successful bid for the said amount (4-6th of the indictment),” “I would like to acquire the instant real estate at a low price of KRW 730,000,000,000,000.” If I would like to make it possible for P or P to collect the first auction, I would like to make it possible for P or P to obtain a registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate,” and the judgment of the court below was modified by permitting it.