logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2014노3117
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant made no promise to pay the first intermediate payment at his own expense to the victim, and whether the defendant bears it at his own expense was not an important factor in the business agreement or the sales contract. The reason for the loss was that the real estate market sharply aggravated and did not resell the sales right, and thus, even if the first intermediate payment was paid at his own expense, the result did not change. Therefore, in the situation that there was no deception by the victim and it was difficult for the defendant to cancel the sales contract on the cancellation refund money, the sales contract was terminated through the head of the Broman F Office with the consent of the victim, and the excess amount of KRW 100 million out of the refund money was paid to the head of the F office in accordance with the agreement, and the victim filed a complaint while the victim was in custody of the remainder money due to differences in the interest settlement.

The defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below can sufficiently recognize each criminal fact as stated in the judgment of the court below, and otherwise cannot find any error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

In particular, in relation to the sale price fraud, the above evidence recognizes the fact that the defendant and the victim agreed to contribute the same amount in relation to the sale contract of this case, and the remaining intermediate payment is paid with the loan.

arrow