logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.08.07 2014노1174
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim as the joint purchaser even though he/she is not a joint purchaser with respect to 8 officetel-gun, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant officetel”). The issue of whether the Defendant is the purchaser of an officetel is an important factor in the victim’s lending money by expectationing the security of the officetel. Thus, the Defendant’s borrowing of money hiding such circumstance constitutes deception contrary to the good faith principle.

Although the court below determined otherwise, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On February 14, 2013, the summary of this part of the charges stated in this part of the charges, the Defendant, at the trade infinite office located in the Nam-gu, Busan, Seomun-gu, Busan, referred to as the “hinsan-gun Dofficetel 8, Busan, and this is the first 20 years of real estate life. This is almost the same as the one infinite, and the purchase of this is the same, and at least KRW 140 million, if sold, may remain at least KRW 100,000. However, if an intermediate payment was loaned KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won as part of the intermediate payment was entered, the Defendant would give KRW 30,000,000.”

However, the defendant was not a party to the above 8 officetels, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it normally.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) anticipated that a large amount of profit would accrue from the resale of the instant officetel; and (b) offered the instant officetel to F; and (c) sold the instant officetel to the Defendant while purchasing it.

arrow