beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below's scope of trial in this case should not be acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the singleness and continuity of a crime between each of the crimes provided in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the judgment in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is not recognized, and thus, the defendant should not be acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the victim's fraud is found in each of the crimes included in this part of the facts charged in this case. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of each of the crimes included in this part of the facts charged, the court determined that this part of the charges was not to be acquitted separately, and that the remaining part
As to this, since only the defendant appealed against the part of conviction, the part of acquittal in the above order was separated and finalized as it is, and the part of acquittal in the reasoning is deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, even though it was brought to the trial in accordance with the principle of no appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 191). As to this part, the theory of innocence in the judgment of the court below is followed (i.e., the part of innocence in the judgment of the court below which forms the conclusion shall not be judged again), and only
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to each guilty part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts in the lower judgment (2014Gohap56), the Defendant actually owned the instant site for electric source housing construction, which reaches KRW 872,191,200,000, even at the time of the instant case. However, even if the said appraisal was to deduct KRW 360,00,000 from the purchase price of the said site, the Defendant would remain 512,191,200, and thus, at the time, the Defendant would be able to fully pay the money borrowed from the victim C.