logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노2220
주택법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to secure the sale price to be returned to F, the Defendant merely delivered the apartment sale contract in the name of E to F in order to secure the sale price to be returned to F, not transferred the above apartment sale right to F for profit, and ② even if the apartment sale right was transferred, the apartment sale right was transferred to F.

Even if the instant apartment sale contract, etc. issued by the Defendant F does not constitute “certificates that can be supplied with housing” under Article 39(1) of the Housing Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) First, the Defendant’s first argument No. 1

A. (1) We examine the following: (a) comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the trial court, such as the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant, the F and E, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, etc., and (b) M is called "the apartment of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

A) Around May 2012, H had obtained the right to sell the apartment in this case. He heard that he would sell the apartment in this case at KRW 35 million and delivered a certified copy of his resident registration. ② H issued the sales contract, etc. on June 7, 2012 upon the request of E (the nameO prior to the opening of the name) to sell the apartment in this case. ③ Meanwhile, the Defendant was paid a total of KRW 200 million from the F from April 2012 to May 2012 under the pretext of the sale price, but sold the apartment in this area.

arrow