The case holding that in the sale of meat stores and restaurants attached thereto, the seller's non-notice of permission for restaurant business does not constitute deception

In the sale of meat stores and other restaurants attached thereto, the buyer thought that the seller has the permission for the business of the restaurant along with the permission for the meat store business, and the seller did not ask about the change of the name of the restaurant, but changed the name of the permission for the meat store and the registration certificate from the seller, and operated the meat store and the restaurant for about 8 months, and the seller did not discuss the change of the name of the above restaurant business license. In addition, in the sales contract, the seller did not discuss the change of the name of the above restaurant business license. In addition, in the sales contract, even though the meat store includes three of the restaurant business license, it cannot be concluded that the above sale is based on the premise that the above sale is a restaurant business license, and under the above circumstances, the seller did not notify the fact that the restaurant business license was not granted.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 82No1279 delivered on January 28, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above restaurant business was not permitted due to the fact that the above restaurant business was established in the victim's 4,00,000 won when the defendant had been operated by the defendant on December 16, 1980. However, since the above restaurant was registered only as a simple restaurant in the name of the defendant, only the defendant is allowed to run a business at the same time, and the name of the registration could not be changed. However, the above restaurant business was already invalidated at the time of the above sales contract due to the fact that the above registration of the food service business was not notified within the renewal period from April 1 of the same year, and the above facts were not notified even though he had a duty to notify the above facts, and the above restaurant business was allowed to change its name and thus, the above restaurant business was acquired from the victim's 80,000,000 won under the same name as the down payment, 198, 300,000 won, and 300,000 won.

However, according to the following facts, even if the victim's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's 6th and 62th, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's 5th and 5th and 10th and 10th of the above cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's cafeteria's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's 18th.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of the court below which punished the defendant with the intention of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts against the rules of evidence, and therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified and the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Gangnam-young (Presiding Justice)