logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2019.01.08 2017고단454
사기등
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The facts charged (basic facts) was determined by the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into a River, which was enforced on June 26, 2009, against the relevant land owners who applied for compensation within the period of time until December 31, 2013, to expropriate the land incorporated into a river located in the mouth of the Nakdong River, and to pay compensation for such expropriation.

Around May 2012, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the compensation was paid to the land owned by his own's wife B (1932) through his wife on a favorable opportunity, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that four lots of land, such as D, E, F, G, etc. (hereinafter "the land of this case") were included in the river acquisition land, which was owned by his wife C (1934) who was living in the same Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dongdong, not his own own, and who was the bereaved family of the Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong (1934).

With knowledge that the instant land was not owned B (1932), the Defendant used that the instant land was registered in the name of Da (1934) where his own father and name were the same, and prepared relevant documents as if his father B (1932) died, and subsequently received inheritance through division with his siblings, and decided to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant for the real estate owned by the bereaved families of the accident C (1934).

【Criminal Facts】

A. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not have any land owned by the Defendant, including D, E, F, and G, from the original of the notarial deed; (b) was the original of the notarial deed and the original of the notarial deed, at the Changwon District Court located in the Eup and Myeon; and (c) was aware of the fact that the public official was not a land owned by the Defendant for the 4 items, including D, E, F, and G, from the perspective that the 1932 was dead, the Defendant submitted a document prepared by the notarial deed office as if he was inherited by agreement with the notarial deed.

arrow