beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the civil case (Tgu District Court 2014Na9500, hereinafter “relevant civil case”) between E and D concerning the real estate stated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant did not have been present and made a statement contrary to his memory, and even if a part of the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent with his memory, it would be due to the deprivation of the purpose of the examination or mistake of the purport of the examination.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below held that the Defendant was the same as this part of the grounds for appeal. The following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant was involved in the entire process of the instant real estate sales contract on behalf of the seller D, and ② the sales contract for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
On December 31, 2013, 2013, the remainder payment date of which was the remainder payment date, even if the seller was able to prepare documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, such as a certificate of the personal seal impression for real estate sale and a certified copy and abstract of resident registration, at the time of delivery at the Saemaul Depository of the Corporation, the seller was not in a state of preparing and holding the real estate in advance. Notwithstanding that the seller’s loan of the real estate in this case as security did not receive the loan for personal use of D, the Defendant testified differently from objective facts, and ③ at the time of the investigation by the prosecutor, the buyer E knew the bank account number in the name of D with the illegal buyer.