beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and fines of seven thousand won,00,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant A was aware of the boundary of H land of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) in error, and Defendant A did not intend to deceive the victim or to take the property by fraud at the time of the instant real estate sales contract.
B. As to the charge of general traffic obstruction against the Defendants among the facts charged in this case by the prosecutor (1) erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in light of the fact that the existence of the road in this case is obvious and the need for the use of the road by neighboring land owners, as well as the fact that the present situation is actually offered for the passage of the public, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the size of the forest land owned by Defendant A was 307 square meters, which exceeds 42% of the size of the land No. 1 of the instant case owned by the Defendant A, and (b) Defendant A purchased the land No. 1 of this case in around 1998 and sold it to the victim on June 28, 2010 after the alteration of the form and quality of the forest and the land classification into the site after the purchase of the land No. 1 of this case; and (c) Defendant A newly constructed the housing unit on the land and sold it to the victim on June 28, 2010; (d) Defendant A owned the land No. 1 of this case
Even in case of change of forest form and quality, change of land category, and new construction of housing, Defendant A requested or entered as owner.