logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016노1122
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the statements of the victim, I, and D from the witness at the court below, the defendant could be found not guilty of the facts charged in this case by deceiving the victim that "the defendant would pay the above real estate purchase price if he would cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate." However, the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On July 9, 2013, the gist of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) on July 9, 2013, the right to collateral security of KRW 20 million with the maximum debt amount, which the Defendant was a mortgagee; and (c) on March 6, 2014, the right to collateral security of KRW 85 million with the maximum debt amount, which the victim E was a mortgagee.

On March 6, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to H on the G real estate operated by the Defendant in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant: (a) sold the instant real estate to H; and (b) sold the instant real estate to I, the father of the victim, upon obtaining KRW 60 million from the purchaser on the face of the victim’s cancellation of the right to collateral security; and (c) delivered it to the victim; and (d) the remainder of the victim’s money to be received from D and KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000,000 won for the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant; (b) received documents necessary for the cancellation of collateral security from the victim on the same day.

However, the Defendant did not intend to pay the purchase price even if the victim had cancelled his right to collateral security.

As above, the Defendant acquired property benefits by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the facts charged according to the entire certificate of the registered matters concerning the instant real estate.

arrow