beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant C (including the part on innocence) shall be reversed.
Defendant
C. A fine of 50,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The C’s statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged against Defendant A is difficult to believe due to the lack of consistency, and the amount of the provisional contract that the victim I paid to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out agent”) to the said victim would be subject to the death of the said victim pursuant to Article 565(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, the instant parcelling-out agent is not obligated to return it.
Therefore, even if the defendant had the intention not to return the down payment to the above victim, the defendant had the intention not to return the down payment.
Even if the defendant is not liable for the crime of fraud, the defendant is not liable.
In addition, the defendant, under the name of his spouse S, has the right to sell the apartment of this case among the members of the main district.
Therefore, in a case where the victim L wishes, the Defendant was able to transfer the above right to sell at any time, and even if the Defendant promised to do so to the above victim, it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud is established against the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below which recognized the establishment of a crime of fraud against the defendant has erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. On July 31, 2014, Defendant B victim I and the instant sales agent drafted “a comprehensive contract” containing the content that the contract deposit will be terminated when the said victim cancels the provisional contract. In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that there was an agreement between the contracting parties to the contract at the time of entering into the existing provisional contract, and thus, at the time of the Defendant deceiving the said victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, the apartment of this case has the right to sell the apartment of this case to the members of the State.
Since S is a spouse under the law of A, it was possible to change the name of the right of sale to Ler at any time.
Therefore, even if the defendant committed such a promise to the above victim, it is against the victim.