beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Fraud part) have been found to have been known through the introduction of B, the Defendant received KRW 500 million as a security deposit for the sale of goods in lots from I and delivered five blank sales contracts to secure the refund of the above security deposit. The sales agent I and J concluded the sales contract in this case without permission by using the above sales contract form.
In addition, at the time of the instant sales contract, F had the factory room of 15 households that can be sold in a normal way, and in particular, the victim K concluded a sales contract on June 25, 2008 with respect to G apartment 113 Dong 601, which falls under the above factory room, and thus, it was sufficiently possible to receive the ownership transfer of the above apartment, but the victim suffered damages due to the alteration of the object of sale to 109 Dong 601, and this is the case that occurred after the defendant transferred F to B, and thus, the defendant is not liable to the defendant.
Nevertheless, the court below adopted the statements of I, J, etc. lacking credibility as evidence of guilt, and found the defendant guilty as to the fraud part of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted that this part of the facts charged is the same as the grounds for appeal, even in the lower court’s determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
The court below acknowledged the credibility of the statements made by I and J in the relevant part of the "judgment on the defendant's assertion" and in the investigative agency of I and J as consistent and mutually consistent. According to the evidence above, B introduced I to the defendant as a parcelling-out agent, and the defendant sells I the five G apartment units to I as sales agent.