logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.07.24 2013노286
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the defendant, even though he owned a clan, has consented to the use of the land of this case to the victim without a resolution of the clan general meeting or a meeting of executive members. In the situation where there was a dispute between the members about whether the land of this case was purchased from the time of purchase, and there was a reason that I resigned from the office of the chairman due to the dispute, etc., the defendant may be recognized as a crime of defraudation in light of the fact that he did not explain the internal situation of

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts which found the defendant not guilty.

2. As argued by the prosecutor, it was true that the defendant, at the time of the consent of the use of the land of this case, did not receive a resolution of the clan while conducting the general duties of the defendant's clan. However, in addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant, at the time of the consent of the use of this case, entered five to six members of the clan of this case, including I, where the chairperson of the clan of this case was the chairperson of the clan of this case, and the change to the L which the representative of the clan of this case had raised an issue of purchase of the land of this case around August 2009, <3> at the time of the consent of the use of this case, the title trustee of the land of this case, was prepared at the defendant's request without any particular awareness, ④ The victim used the land of this case as a access road of this case for about 1 year, and the consent of the use of the land of this case cannot be seen as an active disposal act that reduces the property of the clan.

The land of this case is owned by the victim only if it was known that there is a dispute within the clan.

arrow