Around May 2017, the Defendant stated, at the office of the Defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, that “A victim C is currently in exchange with D in the same business relationship with B, and the chairperson and the North Korean defectors who brought to the organization and who are in the organization, shall be liable for the ownership of the house registered as the owner of the building within two weeks. However, in order to sell the house, the Defendant shall negotiate with the chairperson, and therefore, it is necessary to pay KRW 10,000,000 for expenses incurred therein.”

However, around that time, the Defendant had been in arrears with a considerable portion of the office rent, and was unaware of the president of the E organization, and was thought to use the money for the purpose of personal office rent, etc. that is not related to the sale of housing. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to use ten million won from the beginning to negotiate with the president of the E organization.

Nevertheless, on June 1, 2017, the Defendant received money from the victim to the G account operated by the Defendant to transfer KRW 10 million under the name of the commencement of the housing sale business.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the fact that he/she received KRW 10 million from the victim's written test);

1. The legal statement of the witness C, I and D;

1. The copy of the certified copy of corporate register, the details of passbook transactions, and the defendant and defense counsel of the service contract for sale by way of money as criminal facts claim that the defendant was given and received money according to a legitimate contract for sale by proxy is merely a transaction without intention

According to the adopted evidence, it is recognized that the sales agency service contract between the defendant and the victim was concluded for the sale of goods in lots as alleged by the defendant, and accordingly the defendant received KRW 10 million.

However, in this case, the fact that the defendant should be examined in order to recognize the intention of the defendant is not whether the defendant has entered into a fixed contract and received the money.

The contract itself is for the sale of housing.