(영문) 인천지방법원 2008. 12. 19. 선고 2008노1363 판결

When Nonindicted 1, the complainant, was unable to repay the money borrowed from Nonindicted 2, he delegated the authority to dispose of the real estate (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) to the Defendant, the agent of Nonindicted 2, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, by granting the power of delegation, waiver, resident registration certificate, certificate of seal imprint, certificate of seal imprint, certificate of resident registration, etc. several times, thereby losing all rights to the real estate of this case and delegating all rights to the disposal of the property of this case. The Defendant visited Nonindicted 3’s office and explained the above contents, and provided consultation that there is no legal problem, and received all delegations of the authority to dispose of the real estate of this case from Nonindicted 1. The Defendant prepared and submitted a power of delegation on receipt of documents related to the auction of this case, and the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain illegal profits because it did not have any intention to obtain illegal profits, and thus, the court adopted a statement to the investigation agency of this case with no credibility as evidence, and determined that there was no error in the judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s previous cancellation of delegation or agreement between Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

On the other hand, the court below explained in detail the decision on the summary column of the evidence of the court below with the same argument as that of this case by the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel. Examining the above decision of the court below closely by comparing the records and records, the conclusion of the court below is just and it is also reasonable, and there is a difference between private persons in terms of the scope of interested parties, such as the execution obligor and execution obligee, the contents of rights and duties recognized, requirements and effects necessary for the progress of the procedure, as well as the fact that the original ruling on the commencement of auction for the debtor is very important in that the defendant's delivery of the original ruling on the commencement of auction for the purpose of protecting his rights by participating in the auction procedure, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's consent to the above delegation of authority was not included in the existing auction procedure of this case without any change in the name of the defendant's power to receive the letter of delegation or delivery documents, and it is difficult to see that the above change in the scope of authority of the court below's decision on commencement of auction was not delegated to the defendant prior to receive the letter of authority.

3. Ex officio determination

Examining ex officio the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including health class, the circumstances that can be considered in the background of the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant did not have the history of being punished for the same kind of crime, and other character, character, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court seems to be unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as those stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and therefore they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.