(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.09.27 2012노3781 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.09.27 2012노3781

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 1, 2, and 3 of the facts of the lower judgment's crime 1) as stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant obtained implied permission from H to the effect that the Defendant would be able to purchase and sell the I building within the scope of the construction cost, and that on August 4, 2010, the Defendant acquired the whole I building from D, E, and F, a right holder of H's right, and thus, the Defendant was authorized to sell the 7th floor of the I building and prepare a sales contract therefor. Furthermore, in the case of Articles 702 and 703 of the I building, M did not agree to sell the I building to R and S, and the Defendant did not know that it was sold, so it cannot be deemed that there was the criminal intent to acquire the I building. In the case of Article 6(a) of the facts of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not say that “I would have to lend the I building to U.S. for payment of the construction cost,” and in the case of Article 6(b) of the lower judgment, the Defendant would have continued to acquire the remaining shares 301.

If the Corporation completes, it shall be repaid to the property or money.

Since 'the defendant's words only, it cannot be said that the defendant deceivings U.S.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's facts constituting the crime Nos. 1, 2, and (3) and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant did not have the authority to sell the 7th floor of the I building or prepare a sales contract therefor, and the defendant delivered the I building Nos. 702 and 703 to M with the knowledge that M would sell the I building No. 702 and 703 to a third party. Thus, this part of the defendant's sales contract is the same

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.04.10 2019노4031

-서울동부지방법원 2013.05.03 2013노68

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.30 2015가합32455

-서울고등법원 2014.09.18 2013노3089

-수원지방법원 2017.12.11 2017노2466