beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① one of the three several sale rights of the victim D was transferred to K on April 15, 2009, and the name was changed, the Defendant prepared a letter of performance that he would arrange three sale rights to the victim on September 30, 2009, and ② the N who delivered the documents of this case to G was carrying out the name of the auditor of the real estate consulting company operated by the Defendant; ③ the Defendant was indicted for several crimes related to the right to parcel out and was pronounced guilty. ④ Although the Defendant was highly likely to receive the payment from the transferee of the right to parcel out through N, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not recognize the Defendant’s fraud, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, on May 6, 2008, purchased at the Defendant’s real estate office located in Songpa-gu Seoul building B-605, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building E-605, KRW 120 million at the victim D’s real estate office, “If G purchases at the FF unit of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, KRW 3 apartment sale tickets to be newly built and sold, KRW 120 million will be sold at the higher cost after three months.
In the sense that “The purchase and sale contract for real estate and the purchase and sale contract for the purchase of three units of 33 square meters of the newly constructed apartment units between the victim and the victim were concluded that grant the victim the status of a member of the regional housing association.”
After September 5, 2008, the defendant, upon receipt of a request from the injured party to purchase and sell the said newly-built apartment sale tickets at the same place, and to request the conversion thereof, shall return the certified certificate of membership status and the real estate sale and purchase contract to the third party, selling three the right of sale to the injured party and return the price of KRW 120 million to the third party.
A false statement was made.
However, the facts are that of the defendant on July 2008.