beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant L is reversed.
Defendant
L is punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) through misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A did not deceive the victim AC, AG, N, BO, AP, AO, or AM by falsely informing the possibility or location of future development of the land subject to sale.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant H (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant H did not mislead the victim AG or AP by falsely notifying the possibility or location of the land subject to sale in the future.
(B) Defendant H appealed on November 17, 201, Defendant H’s fraudulent case P and N, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of fraud, with prison labor for the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon District Court. The Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, reversed the lower judgment on May 15, 201, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months, and thereafter the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 23, 2012, giving up each of the appeals by P and N.
The witness only appeared as a witness and made a false statement against his memory.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment and fine of three million won, probation, community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant L (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) did not take part in the instant crime.
2. Determination on Defendant A and H’s appeal
A. The following circumstances, i.e., (i) victim AC,N, BO, AO, and AM are introduced by Defendant A; (ii) victim A and AP are sold in lots through the introduction of Defendant A and H, but the fact that the place of the introduction is different from the area actually sold in lots was finally known after the investigation agency and the court of the first instance to the effect that the defendant A and H were aware of the fact that the place of the introduction was different from the area actually sold in lots.