beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant cancelled an exchange contract with the victim and disposed of real estate in another place, the crime of breach of trust is not established. Even if the contract was not rescinded, the Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of breach of trust.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. As to the punishment of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. After the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with the victim on the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant transferred 1/2 of the shares of the land and buildings in the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City G and 1/2 of the shares in the H land and buildings to T is recognized.
(In addition, each of the above shares is referred to as "each of the shares in this case". First, the argument that the exchange contract between the defendant and the victim lawfully rescinds is included in the claim for invalidation and cancellation as asserted in the relevant civil case.
The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Health Team, the original judgment, and the trial court:
① In order for the Defendant to cancel an exchange contract with the victim, there must be reasons such as delay of performance, impossibility of performance, incomplete performance, etc. In accordance with the exchange contract with the Defendant and the exchange contract with the Defendant, the victim fulfilled all obligations by completing the registration of transfer of ownership on his own real estate to N in the form of intermediate omission registration.
(2) Although the Defendant alleged that he/she entered into an exchange contract with the victim with a significant imbalance, there is no appraisal report on real estate owned by the victim, but there is no data to recognize the market price of real estate owned by the Defendant.