beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reason) shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
(b).
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of the use of a private document and the use of a private investigation document, and the Defendant appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing as to the guilty part among the lower judgment, and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing as to the acquittal part of the grounds of fraud among the lower judgment, and thus, the acquittal part on the use of the private document and the use of the private investigation document are separated and finalized,
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A. On March 2016, with respect to the part concerning the defraudation of the purchase price of KRW 8.5 million among the frauds, a prosecutor 1) and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty in the reasoning of the original judgment), the victim committed an act to delegate the sale and purchase of the instant real estate to the Defendant and to receive the actual purchase price of KRW 380 million, not designating the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 388,500,000,000. As such, the Defendant deceiving the victim that the purchase price of the instant real estate was KRW 3888,50,000,000, but did not include the difference in the settlement amount of KRW 8.5 million. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant was not guilty of the said KRW 8.5 million is erroneous by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant would pay KRW 388,50,000 to the victim who disposed of the apartment of this case, but the victim would acquire part of the contract without paying the above price to the victim, on the ground that the contract was prepared to sell the apartment of KRW 380,000,000 to the Defendant E.