I. On January 18, 2013, Defendant 2015, Defendant 3907, at the same time, delegated the sale of land to the representative D of the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim C”) who is the owner of the land E 10 lots in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”), the representative of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) who is the owner of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant land”). The chief of the division delegated the sale of land to the general secretary, who is the representative of the F Co., Ltd., the owner of the land in this case. The chief of the division is between the f Co., Ltd. and the f Co., Ltd., who is the owner of the land in this case.

In order for the victim company to conclude a land purchase and sale contract, the victim company made a false representation in the amount of 20 million won first at the consulting cost.

However, even if the defendant receives the above money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to mediate the sales contract of the land of this case.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim company, received KRW 20 million from the post office account in the name of the Defendant for the same day consulting expenses from the victim company.

Ⅱ Around October 27, 2008, Defendant 2016, Defendant 305, at the Seoul Office of Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for the purchase of KRW 67,611.6 square meters of the 97,091 square meters of the 1stm2 in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the actual owner of the forest, agreed with the victim to sell the 60 million square meters of the 10,000 square meters of the 1st day and the 17th day of November 17, 2008, and the victim paid the 10,000 won to the saidJ as the purchase price.

In such a case, the Defendant had a duty to resell the above forest land and deliver the purchase price to the victim, and to refrain from disposing of the said forest land beyond the delegated intent by providing it as security to another person.

1. On June 14, 2010, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the K non-agricultural partnership for the shares of the forest 991/612, in violation of the aforementioned duties.