beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A (excluding the part of the application for compensation order) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It was true that Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with CCTV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) immediately before the transfer of J apartment 2011 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) to the victim A in order to repay the debt of KRW 40 million to the victim Q, Defendant A obtained any benefit due to the fact that Defendant A’s obligation to return the lease deposit was merely the obligation to be borne by Defendant A, and thus, Defendant A obtained any benefit.
It cannot be deemed that the victim Q has suffered property damage, and this part cannot be viewed as fraud.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.
B. (1) The 5-year imprisonment sentenced by the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A is too unreasonable.
(2) The punishment sentenced by the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant B (the sentence of the court of first instance: the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the fine of the court of second instance: the fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.
(3) The punishment of a fine of KRW 3 million imposed on Defendant CE by the lower court on Defendant CE is too unreasonable.
(4) The sentence sentenced by the first instance judgment against Defendant A and the sentence sentenced by the second instance judgment against Defendant B is too unfasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) On February 28, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged is to transfer the apartment of this case owned by the Defendant to the victim in order to repay the obligation of KRW 40 million that the Defendant had borne by the victim Q Q at the office of the above K Licensed Real Estate Agent on February 28, 2013. However, on the other hand, the Defendant bears the security deposit to be paid to the lessee who was living in the apartment of this case and AS separately.