beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. There is no fact that the defendant in mistake of facts did not deceiving the victim E and received KRW 10 million from the above victim.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts, and the circumstances inferred therefrom, the Defendant can be recognized as having obtained cash KRW 10 million from the victim E to the sale of the Loyalian story as a result of deceiving the victim E, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is groundless.
1) The Defendant, as the representative of B main apartment sales agent C, provided a consultation on the sale to the buyers of the above apartment, including the victim. 2) The victim stated at the investigative agency and court of the court below as follows: (a) The Defendant provided a counseling on the sale of the apartment house in cash to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant had several accounts for the sales of the apartment house; and (c) the Defendant displayed the sales price table by apartment floor; (d) the sales price table by apartment floor differs equally; and (e) the sales price table by apartment floor differs equally; and (e) in the case of the Loyth floor, sales price is attached to the Defendant, but the Defendant stated that the Lyyth’s sales price is 9.3 million won per 9.3 million won per 9,000 won per 9. b) The method and circumstances at the time of delivery of cash 10 million won per 5.00,000 won per 1,000 won per 1,000 won per 10.
10,000 won in cash form 100,000 won in 100,000 won in bulk and put them in a paper room to the defendant;
Although the defendant paid the above money to the defendant, the husband of the victim made a deduction to the extent that the husband of the victim did not pay the money.