beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below acquitted the victim H of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant had been aware of the victims' deception and received the payment of the purchase price in light of the fact that the victim H consistently stated the defendant's deception and the content of a pledge drawn up to the victim H around October 2006. The court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On July 4, 2005, the Defendant: (a) revised the Victim G and H to the Victim G in the F Real Estate Office located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) the size on April 4, 2006, from 22,511 square meters to 21,732 square meters; (c) the same day was registered as J or K’s registration conversion from I to J; and (d) was divided into “J or K’s parcel number on the same day; (c) the instant land before subdivision was referred to as “instant land”; and (d) received KRW 75 million from the victims for the purpose of purchase.”
However, in fact, on the land I of Taean-gun, Taean-gun had a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 126 million of the maximum debt amount and KRW 140 million of the maximum debt amount set on July 22, 2004, which was set by the Korea Saemaul Bank of Taean-gun, around August 22, 2003, and the victims had a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 126 million of the maximum debt amount set on July 22, 2004. Thus, even if the victims purchased the land as above, the victims could have lost their ownership upon the exercise of the right to collateral security, but the Defendant did not notify the victims of the establishment of the said right
Ultimately, the Defendant received the victims’ property by deceiving the victims as above.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) The Defendant’s defense was notified of the fact that the mortgage was established against the deceased G; and (b) the victims’ purchase of the instant real estate shares was actually involved in the network G, thereby acting as a broker for the Defendant.