beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of entering into a lease agreement with the victim, the Defendant notified the victim of the fact that the auction for the building as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is underway, and the victim was also aware that the auction is being conducted by inspecting the registry of the instant building and having knowledge of the fact that the said auction is being conducted. Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.
However, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below held that ① the victim was not informed of the fact that the building of this case is under auction, consistently from the investigation agency to the court below
E, the statement made by the Defendant, consistently consistent with the victim’s statement, and E, the Defendant introduced the victim, and there is no reason to enter into a lease agreement with the content that the victim would pay a separate monthly rent when he was aware of the fact that the instant building had been conducting an auction for the remaining 11 months, barring such circumstances as the deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 80 million, and KRW 800,000,00 in light of the market price around the instant building. However, there is no reason to enter into a lease agreement with the content that the victim would pay a deposit in accordance with the market price if he was aware of the fact that the instant building had already been conducting an auction for the remaining 1 months.
However, considering the fact that the application for suspension of execution or the disposition for preservation of property was not made until the time of conclusion of the contract, and the auction is not likely to be delayed for two years, the defendant is the victim at the time of conclusion of the lease contract.