logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.18 2015고정665
공인중개사의업무및부동산거래신고에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged was around December 14, 201, the Defendant traded 234.6 square meters of the Daejeon-gu Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant one site”) and received KRW 7 million as remuneration therefor. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant traded and traded the said D site 238.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant two site”) and received payment in excess of the prescribed remuneration under each Act by being transferred to the national bank account under the Defendant’s name on two occasions on March 28, 2013 and April 15, 2013.

Judgment

The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree of conviction as above, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or uncomfortable, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unfortunateed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012, etc.). Direct evidence supporting the Defendant’s payment of each money exceeding the statutory brokerage commission is the witness E’s statement. However, considering the following circumstances duly adopted and investigated by this court, the witness E’s statement is difficult to believe, and the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven without reasonable doubt.

E found the remainder of the instant site on December 23, 2011 to be KRW 213 billion in the accusation, and paid KRW 2.5 million among them to the Defendant as the remainder of the instant site, and on the same day, stated that the Defendant paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant, and submitted the details of withdrawing KRW 213 million from the account in the wife’s name on the same day, but in accordance with the sales contract, the instant case was subject to the sales contract.

arrow