beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), and on June 2010, at the above D office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan E Building 201 in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “G”), the victim H and the victim I sold a loan to the Jongno-gu Seoul J, Jongno-gu, Seoul. On the other hand, the Defendant would purchase a share of land to acquire the membership of the association and then additionally pay the construction cost, allowing the Plaintiff to move into the above D office at around 32 square meters around December 2013.
“Falsely speaking,” the victim H was transferred KRW 40 million from the victim H, KRW 35 million from the victim I to the account in the name of D for the purchase of land shares over three occasions in total, including around June 10, 2010, around the 15th day of the same month, and around the 16th day of the same month.
However, in fact, the above loan site was acquired by the Defendant through a compulsory auction on March 31, 2010, but it was without the consent of the owner of other public land, and the problem of unauthorized buildings located within the loan site was not resolved, and in order to construct a new building on the loan site, it was obtained permission to cut standing timber and permission to engage in the construction of a new building on the forest land from the Gu office, but it was not possible to move into the loan around December 2013, as the above problem was not resolved, because it was not an application for permission.
Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received KRW 40 million from the victim H, and received KRW 35 million from the victim I.
2. Determination:
A. Whether a crime of fraud is established under the Criminal Act shall be determined as at the time of the act, and the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of fraud on the ground that a change in economic conditions after the act results in the failure of the defendant to perform his/her obligations (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.). B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the defendant himself/herself operated:
D-.