beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court acquitted the Defendant as to each of the frauds against Victim G and H, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged. Defendant A filed an appeal against the aforementioned guilty part of the lower judgment.
Therefore, since the non-guilty portion which has not been appealed is separated and confirmed as it is, it is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this Court.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) As to the fraud against Victim C, there is no credibility of the lower court’s witness C and Y’s respective legal statements that correspond to this part of the facts charged.
With respect to the land in the Gyeonggi-si J and 20 lots (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of the seizure, BE Bank, the provisional seizure by the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the seizure by Yangyang-gun was made on the instant land due to the concealed debts of the victim C, including the ownership in the name of the Defendant, after the registration of the transfer of the land was made. While the victim received the payment guarantee from the Defendant, the victim was not able to pay the purchase price, the maximum amount of the bonds set to BF on February 6, 2013, the maximum amount of the bonds set to BG on March 13, 2013, the maximum amount of the bonds set to BG on March 13, 2013, and the maximum amount of 60 million won transferred under the contract to BH on October 12, 2012, the Defendant failed to implement the guarantee plan that the Defendant had no capacity to pay the purchase price to the victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
B) Since a misunderstanding prosecutor did not disclose the amount of pecuniary benefits, the judgment dismissing the public prosecution unspecified in the facts charged should be rendered.
2) As to the fraud of the victim E (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant did not first demand the victim E to reach an agreement, but rather hear the victim’s five business talks with N M M and the Defendant’s five business talks.