beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that “G” in the indictment in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu D, Seoul, is a clerical error in the indictment owned by the Defendant at the Defendant’s residence (Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul). “Building E” made a contract with the victim F (53 years of age) for real estate and made a contract for the loan (the amount of credit) of the Bomunmun Saemaeul-gu, which is a mortgagee of the right to collateral security of the above real estate, “The Defendant was able to succeed to the loans of the branch class of real estate at the Hanmun Saemaeul-gu, Saemaeul Saemaul-gu, Seoul, and that “
However, although it is possible for the defendant to succeed to the repayment of the loan, the defendant is unable to sell and purchase the above real estate even if he receives the down payment from the victim because it is impossible to succeed to the loan due to the lack of the intention or ability to repay the loan
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued KRW 10,00 as down payment by concluding a real estate sales contract with the victim.
2. Determination
A. As seen in the purport of the facts charged, the facts charged indicate that the status of succession to the repayment of the loan was possible, but when the loan is repaid, the obligation is extinguished and the subject of succession does not exist.
However, it is understood to the purport that, in selling the land floor of the building in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), 101, 102, 201, 202, 202, and 401, the F’s deception made it impossible for the F to individually succeed to the secured obligation of each of the said six units of joint collateral security by changing the above six units of joint collateral security to six units of the object of each one unit of collateral security, which is the object of each one unit of collateral security, and thus, the content of the charge of deception is also determined on the premise that it is the same as the intent of F’s assertion.
(b) judgment (1).