logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.04.05 2013노66
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, prior to the instant crime, was punished on May 14, 2010 as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, etc., and was aware that the Defendant had a legitimate ownership of CY 2,284 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and disposed of the instant real estate to the victim. As such, there was no intention to acquire the instant real estate by deception at the time of selling it to the victim.

B. The sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to determine the mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. The intent of the crime is sufficient, not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence.

(2) On February 28, 2008, Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416 Decided May 8, 2008, and 2008Do1652 Decided May 8, 2008, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution in June due to the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership in the Changwon District Court’s Mayang support on May 14, 2010, and ② the crime of the above judgment stated that “the Defendant had purchased the instant real estate from the MamoD who was dead, but submitted a false guarantee and received the registration of ownership transfer by false means,” and ③ the heir of MaD included L, M, N, P, Q, including K, and the Defendant’s heir’s name in light of the fact that it was not included in the Defendant’s name.

arrow