logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.04.26 2017노3261
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, 3 years each.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not have any intention to acquire by deception, by mistake of facts or by mistake of legal principles.

The Defendants used the purchase price for the land from the damaged party for the construction cost in another construction site.

The act of deception can not be seen as a deception.

The Defendants had the intent and capacity to develop and sell the H land of this case, and thus, the Defendants had the intent and ability to do so.

B. Illegal sentencing (the Defendants)

2. Determination

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged that the Defendants conspired to deception the victim, thereby deceiving the victim of KRW 380 million from the victim.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the court below's aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the Defendants, in light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts or the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

We cannot accept the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

1. The victim purchased the instant land in order to construct a dormitory of his/her company.

In order for the victim to construct a dormitory on the land of this case, infrastructure construction, such as civil engineering works, must be carried out, and complete land ownership should be transferred from the Defendants.

For these reasons, the victim seems to have specially demanded the Defendants to implement the infrastructure construction when concluding the instant land sales contract.

② However, the Defendants were unable to sell the instant land to the victim due to the shortage of G construction cost, which is another construction site.

arrow