beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part concerning the defendant's case shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
In this case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the dividend claim that the Defendant transferred to the victim H in the 2015 High Order 4049, which was related to mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant 1) and transfer of the dividend claim, the effect of provisional attachment of E, E, AE, AG and AF that raised an objection as a creditor of provisional attachment does not extend to the dividend that the victim is entitled to receive. Therefore, their objection does not affect any way on the dividend that the victim would receive
At the time of the transfer contract, the defendant notified the victim of the fact that the creditors of the remaining provisional seizure except E raised an objection to the dividend, and all of these facts were notified. In addition, the date of the dividend distribution stating their objection to the dividend was also disturbed.
It did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deception.
2) As to the request for payment order, the Defendant of the 2015 Highest 4144 Incident against the victim J acquired from the Gyeonggi Savings Bank, deemed that the Gyeonggi Savings Bank erred in its repayment order, and requested the victim to pay the principal of the 150,987,983 won and interest thereon, which are not the funds, as indicated in the facts charged, while applying for payment order against the victim.
In the process, there was no false assertion or false evidence.
The defendant's act is merely an interpretation, composition, or division of the law relations that are not clear to himself or it is merely a fact favorable to the other party, or a fact that is favorable to the other party, and it does not constitute fraud of lawsuit.
3) As to the sale of real estate in trust, the Defendant was entitled to sell the real estate in the name of the Defendant at the time of selling the real estate held in trust to the victims, and was willing and capable of executing the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership to the victims, but the victims did not pay the outstanding purchase and sale price.
The victims were not deceiving, and they were deceiving.