logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
의정부지방법원 2016.07.05 2016노81
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant: (a) stated that “The Defendant was responsible for housing construction to the land I owned by E (hereinafter “I”); (b) completed construction works, and (c) did not mean that “the Defendant was divided into substitute debt payment of KRW 500 (hereinafter “the instant land”) equivalent to the construction cost from E; and (d) did not mean that “the Defendant would purchase the instant land from E”; (b) as stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as to the developments leading up to receiving the instant land as stated in the lower judgment; and (c) therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

In addition, as long as the defendant had the right to dispose of the land of this case by purchase of the land of this case or by repayment of substitute land, the defendant has the intention to deceive the victim or to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that “the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, by deceiving the victim” was comprehensively taken into account the following circumstances.

A) The victim consistently stated that “the Defendant purchased the instant land and changed its land category to a factory site, and later made investments in the instant land.” The victim stated that “the Defendant was unaware at the time of the construction of a detached house and the repayment of its expenses on the E’s land, such as the Defendant’s assertion, and became aware at the time of the discovery of E around July 2014.”

B) After the victim met E, the victim called the Defendant and then became aware of the fact that the invested money was paid to E in the purchase price, and instead, the agreement on the repayment of substitute money between E and E.