logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.08.28 2014노2123
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of each crime of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional act of fraud since the defendant had the intent and ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found each of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is sufficiently recognized. A) On April 2011, the Defendant purchased from the Globalland Corporation (hereinafter “ Globalland”) the land located in the H-gu, Northern-gu, and the Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “H land”) for KRW 700,000,000 from KRW 50,000,000,000 from the Defendant’s money. However, although the remainder was paid as the Defendant’s money, the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s debt 12,50,000,000 won borrowed from the F land as collateral, and paid the H land to the Globalland with KRW 425,500,000,000.

However, since then, the above sales contract was rescinded because the defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 100 million.

B. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant waived H land and purchased F only KRW 160,000,000, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on H land on April 3, 2012.

Of F land purchase funds of KRW 160 million, KRW 150,000,000,000 was loaned to the above land as collateral, and the Defendant’s payment with the money was limited to KRW 10,000,000.

At the time of the registration of transfer of ownership of the above land, the Defendant was unable to obtain a loan due to bad credit standing, and the Defendant was granted a loan under U’s name.

arrow