beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the mistake of facts (1) damage, the defendant, as the manager or manager of the Riart of this case, committed the removal of this case for the maintenance and management of the building in accordance with Article 26 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act and Article 7 of the sale contract for sale and purchase, and the judgment of the court below which convicted him of this part of the facts charged even though the actual amount of damage caused by the removal of the building
(2) As to fraud, even if the victim knew, or was unaware, of the fact that the public auction was in progress at the time of the conclusion of the contract, it cannot be said that the contract had not been concluded if he knew of the fact that the public auction
In addition, since the commencement of construction after the contract was postponed, and the contract was terminated due to the conflict with the victim, the decision of the court below which convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, even though the removal work did not have the intention or ability to subcontract.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal. As to this, the lower court: (a) the victim was a person who acquired the ownership of the instant resort by means of public auction or voluntary auction; (b) the members of the resort who concluded the facility use contract also removed the guest room without permission and infringed its utility; (c) the Defendant was required to remove the facility without permission, and (d) the Defendant did not comply with the request by the victim company to suspend the removal work without going through any prior procedure, and (e) the Defendant did not comply with the request even though it was requested by the victim company to suspend the removal work; and (b) the Defendant did not have any economic ability for remodeling or new construction.