매매목적물의 물량을 명시하지 않은 이른바 밭뙈기매매에서 그 경작면적을 속인 것이 기망행위에 해당한다고 본 사례

피고인과 피해자 사이에 체결된 더덕묘매매계약이 약 5,000여평의 묘밭에 씨앗 2가마 3말을 파종하여 생육된 더덕묘를 대금 1,500만원에 매매하는 내용으로 되어 있어서 매매목적물의 물량을 명시하지 않은 이른바 밭뙈기 매매라고 할지라도 위 매매일로부터 수확일까지의 기간이 약 1개월에 불과하고 당시는 겨울철이어서 그 사이에 더덕의 생육에는 아무런 변동이 없었다면, 위 매매는 장래에 생육될 작물이 아니라 이미 생육이 된 현존 작물로서 위 5,000여평의 토지에서 씨앗 2가마 3말을 파종하여 통상적으로 수확될 것이 예상되는 수량의 더덕묘를 매매목적물로 한 것이고 이 수량에 대하여 매매대금을 1,500만원으로 정한 취지라고 보아야 할 것이므로 경작면적이 5,000여평이라는 점은 계약의 주요부분을 이루는 것이고, 따라서 피고인이 실제로 5,000여평이 되지 않음에도 불구하고 5,000여평 이라고 경작면적을 표시하였다면 허위의 사실을 고지한 것이라고 볼 수 밖에 없다.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 88No1911 delivered on April 7, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 피고인이 1987.2.24. 20:30경경북 월성군 소재 피고인의 집에서 같은 리 2747의11의 7필지 연면적 2,353평 되는 더덕묘밭에 씨앗을 1가마 3말밖에 뿌리지 않았고 발아도 잘 되지 않아서 더덕묘도 1.9톤 정도 밖에 안되었는데도 불구하고, 피해자 최종락에게 묘밭 면적이 5,000여평이나 되고 작년에 씨앗을 2가마 3말을 뿌렸고 발아도 잘 되었으니 4.5트럭으로 2대분 이상은 나올 것이다 라고 거짓말하여 이를 믿은 피해자와 더덕묘 9톤(4.5.톤트럭 2대분) 매매계약을 체결하면서 같은 날 계약금 명목으로 현금 200만원, 같은 해 3.3.경 중도금명목으로 100만원, 같은 달 27. 14:00경 잔금 명목으로 1,200만원을 각 교부받아 합계금 1,500만원을 편취하였다는 공소사실에 대하여, 먼저 피고인이 위 피해자에게 더덕묘 9톤을 매도하였다고 인정할 증거가 없고 오히려 그 거시증거에 의하면 피고인은 이 사건 더덕묘를 물량이 아니라 밭뙈기로 매도한 것으로 보이며, 가사 피고인이 피해자에게 더덕묘 9톤을 매도하였다고 하더라도 피고인이 피해자를 기망하였다고 인정할 만한 증거가 없다는 이유로 무죄를 선고하였다.

2. 그러나 피고인이 증거로 함에 동의한 더덕묘계약서 사본(수사기록 9면)기재에 의하면, 피고인과 피해자 사이에 체결된 더덕묘매매계약은 약 5,000여평에 씨앗 2가마 3말을 파종하여 생육된 더덕묘를 대금 1,500만원에 매매하는 내용으로 되어 있는 바, 위 매매가 매매목적물의 물량을 명시하지 않은 이른바 밭뙈기매매라고 할지라도 위 매매일로부터 수확일까지의 기간이 약1개월에 불과하고 당시는 겨울철이어서 그 사이에 더덕의 생육에는 아무런 변동이 없었던 점(1심증인 지 유식의 증언 참조)에 비추어보면, 위 매매는 장래에 생육될 작물을 매매목적물로 한 것이 아니라 이미 생육이 된 현존작물을 매매목적물로 한 것으로서 그 수량을 명시하지 않았다고 하더라도 위 5,000여평의 토지에서 씨앗 2가마 3말을 파종하여 통상적으로 수확될 것이 예상되는 수량의 더덕묘를 매매목적물로 한 것이고 이 수량에 대하여 매매대금을 1,500만원으로 정한 취지라고 보아야 할 것이다.

First, the above sales contract states that the cultivation area of the virtue seedlings exceeds 5,00 square meters, but according to the victim's testimony at the first instance trial, the actual cultivation area of the virtue seedlings is merely 2,352 square meters (see, e.g., 347 of the trial record). The defendant himself makes a statement that he would exceed approximately 4,00 square meters at the court of first instance (see, e.g., 342 of the trial record) so that he would not reach 5,00 square meters (see, e., e., e., see 342 of the trial record). As seen above, if the above sale area is 5,00 square meters of the cultivation area and the large amount is 5,00 square meters of the cultivation area, the cultivation area is 5,00 square meters of the cultivation area is 5,00 square meters of the contract. Thus, if the defendant actually stated that he would not be deemed to be a false statement.

The lower court should have known about how much the actual cultivation area is short of 5,000 square meters, and whether the Defendant expressed as if he exceeded 5,00 square meters in the sales contract with the knowledge of such shortage (i.e., the land cultivated by the Defendant is owned by the Defendant and his mother, and barring special circumstances, the Defendant shall be deemed to have been aware of such shortfall, barring special circumstances).

Second, the defendant stated in the above sales contract that the 2nd 3rd math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math, and the court below acknowledged that this entry is consistent with the facts by the witness testimony of each witness. However, according to the statement of the judicial police officer's disposition preparation on the 5,000 math math math math eth math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math eth math math math eth math math math math math math math math math math math math math math ma.

Furthermore, according to the statement of statement on the number of leaps in the course of handling affairs by judicial police officers who did not dismiss the lower court (see, e.g., Disposition No. 49 of Investigation Record) and testimony of the first instance court, the Defendant already sold the leaps in the same cultivation area to Non-Indicted Party 6,500 won per 6,50 won in a quantity unit, which had already been cultivated in the same cultivation area to Non-Indicted Party 1. At the time, it was recognized that the Defendant, at the time, sold the leaps to the above leapsar in the above cultivation area and could have harvested about about 4 tons of the leapsar in the quantity. In light of the above, the Defendant’s assertion that the leapsar sold 2 ma in the above cultivation area and the above leapsar

Third, according to the witness testimony of the first instance trial, since it had been snow at the time, the dry field was not directly confirmed at the time of making a sales contract, and the defendant presented as a sample at the time of making a sales contract, because it is good that the defendant presented the dry field as a seed with a view to having not feel a need for direct verification of the cultivation area. In light of the fact that the defendant himself does not directly confirm the cultivation area at the time of the sales contract, and that he shows a sample that he shows the fish plantation from the dry field as a sample at the victim's request (see, e.g., the trial record 342 pages). According to this testimony, it cannot be deemed that the defendant believed that the more virtue of the sample of the sample presented by the defendant by the victim is growing in the dry field of 5,00 square meters.

As to this point, the Defendant stated that he died of growing sclings in a typhoon with a scam, and that he notified this fact to the above victim. However, it is against the rule of experience that the purchaser would pay the purchase price based on a flat farming without checking the remaining status of the remaining scams even after hearing the horses above, it is against the rule of experience that the above Defendant’s statement is not reliable.

As seen above, there is room to see that the defendant notified the victim of false facts in entering into the contract of the purchase and sale of the hybrid of this case with the victim and misleads the victim. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated more closely and should have judged the value of evidence, but it is reasonable to discuss this issue in light of the above-mentioned legal principles.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)