The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. The defendant does not conclude an exchange contract with the victim, and there is no intention in breach of trust, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with H on the part of a certified judicial scrivener G office located in the Republic of Korea, on the part of J and the Defendant’s wife B, on the part of the land partitioned by dividing H and the Defendant’s wife C forest land and D site (a half of the size of Q 395 square meters, Q 395 square meters, 271 square meters, 1/2 of the size of R 271 square meters, and 1/2 of the size of R 74 square meters, 1/2 of the size of H’s land) into H’s wife, and H’s mother transferred the K forest and land in the name of the Defendant’s fraudulent name from H. next day, H completed the registration of ownership transfer of the said C9 forest and land in the name of L.

Therefore, the Defendant had a duty to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration under H’s name in the division part of the said C forest land and D site.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in violation of the foregoing duties, sold the said C Forest and D site to M and N on January 30, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 27, 2018, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the partial value of the said C Forest and D site (the amount assessed by the Defendant and H is KRW 20 million) and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to H.

3. The lower court’s judgment, while explaining the various facts and circumstances that can be recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, stated the Defendant and H as “E” on September 19, 2017, 5 pages 4 of the lower judgment, i.e., the part of the forest and field C and D site (hereinafter “B land”) planned to be divided (hereinafter “B”) in the area where the Defendant and H were located, i.e., the forest and field C and D site (hereinafter “B land”). However, this appears to be a clerical error.

2. Forest land: