beta
Text
Defendant
B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B 1) In fact, the Defendant merely entered into a normal contract with the victim, and did not deceiving the victim.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor’s Defendants (Defendant C: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, i.e., the victim, consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, consistently with the following circumstances: (i) the victim would have consistently resolved all civil petitions related to the Kinok-in Park
In trust and trust, the defendant was sold in lots with the Korean-style houses.
In light of the following circumstances, etc., the above statement by the injured party may be deemed to be trustable.
It appears that the victim had a house residing with his family at the time, and the situation was urgent to obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 2.5 billion for the new construction of the Yangyang. When considering the fact that there was no civil petition agreement by the victim, the defendant did not have any reason to be sold in lots, ③ the defendant was first placed with the victim through the introduction of A under the pretext of resolving civil petitions related to the Yang Yangyang, and he was trusted by the removal of banner as stated in the judgment of the court below. In light of these circumstances, the defendant seems to have been able to have had a considerable expectation for resolving civil petitions related to the Yangyangyang, and ④ However, the defendant had no ability to resolve civil petitions related to the Yangyangyang, and was actually unable to provide any help or support to solve it even though the victim had experienced several difficulties or difficulties due to civil petitions by residents of the village, the defendant at the time of this case.