beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) ① The fraud of KRW 10 million under paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, KRW 5 million under paragraph (2), KRW 5 million under paragraph (3), and KRW 40 million under paragraph (5) of the same Article, which was paid on September 11, 2012, as indicated in paragraph (3), as indicated in the lower judgment, the victim agreed to construct a road for AK’s land on the ground of the Gyeonggi-si AA land (hereinafter “instant land”), which was owned by the Defendant, and was paid KRW 20 million in return, but in violation of this agreement, sold the instant land to AF.
Accordingly, the victim agreed that the defendant will pay 60 million won or more to the defendant as damages. The defendant's property or property gains acquired from each of the above criminal facts are acquired as the above damages, and the defendant did not make any statement as stated in the facts charged.
② As to the fraud of KRW 10 million, which was paid on September 7, 2012, among the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment’s holding, this is merely the fact that it was paid under the pretext of introduction for the J Trading in Chuncheon City, and it does not constitute a “work cost for purchasing the above land” by deceiving the victim.
③ As to the frauds under Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, the Defendant was actually subject to a special agreement to actually obtain the approval of land use from O, and the O failed to observe the agreement, thereby not benefiting the victim or transferring shares, and the Defendant did not mention the time limit for payment to the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below.
④ As to the fraud under paragraph (8) of the crime committed in the judgment below, the Defendant repaid the victim KRW 7.9 million to the victim 11 times from December 24, 2012 to March 23, 2013.
Ultimately, the defendant did not have any intention to commit deception or fraud with respect to each of the facts charged in this case.
2. We examine the judgment, and our Criminal Procedure Act.