beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. It is evident that the land ownership relationship was the most important part of the transaction, and it would have not been concluded a sales contract for the forest land of this case if the victim knew that the Defendant was not able to exercise ownership.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the charged facts of this case.
2. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone on the grounds as stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed as deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment.
Considering the circumstances cited by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted the facts charged of this case.
① In order for the Defendant to obtain the registration of forest land of this case to be transferred, the amount of additional investment to joint investors is about KRW 95 million.
(2) The Defendant’s statement that the Defendant would be able to resolve the said investment by receiving the sales amount from the victim is reasonable and probable, in view of the fact that the instant forest land sales amount was KRW 130 million, and that the said amount could have been paid within the framework after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, among the down payment and intermediate payment, KRW 50 million.
② In light of the fact that the registration of subdivision was completed at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract as to 585 square meters of the forest land of this case, and the remaining 104 square meters, the actual completion of the building was completed at approximately one month after the conclusion of the sales contract (for the trial records, 85 pages, 175-176 pages) by the Defendant, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the intention to deceive the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.