2. B remaining 56. Raw Sheon

The Defendants, as the de facto representative of the main food company ○○○ established for the purpose of vessel parts manufacturing, etc. in the Gyeonggi-si ** Simri-si *. The Defendants agreed to sell the instant land in the name of the above ○○○○, which is KRW 14,953 square meters in the same Ri Do 29, 327 square meters in the same Ri ri-ri E, ri-ri 14,953 square meters in the same Ri ri-si ri-si 14, 953 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), and were in the name of the above ○, Ulsan-gu 2 September 2, 2015 * 100,000,000 won in the 2.6 billion office of the victims G 1.6 billion, on the same day, the rest of 200,000 won in the form of the intermediate payment to be paid by the Plaintiff, and the remainder of KRW 1,600,000,000.

As above, the Defendants purchased and sold the instant land to the victim and received the payment of down payment and intermediate payment, so in such a case, the Defendants had the duty to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to sell the instant land in violation of the above duties and sold the instant land to the △△ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. on April 18, 2016 and transferred the ownership transfer registration on April 28, 2016, thereby obtaining economic benefits equivalent to the market price of the instant land, and the victim’s considerable amount.

Property damage was incurred.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Defendants: Articles 355(2) and (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of penalty;

Defendants: Imprisonment Selection

Reasons for sentencing

1. Sentencing criteria:

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Embezzlement and Breach of Trust (at least 50 million won, less than 5 billion won): Basic area (at least 1 year to 3 years)

2. Determination of sentence;

Based on the above sentencing guidelines, the actual damage amount amounted to KRW 510 million, but was not recovered at all, and the defendants' refusal to commit the crime seems to have no private road for repayment, and even though the defendants failed to perform the obligation to remove aggregate production facilities (casaw) under the additional special agreement entered into in the status of KRW 250,000,000 as part payment, the defendants were informed of the cancellation of the sales contract unilaterally, and the victims were unable to agree to the notice of the unilateral cancellation of the sales contract, and disposed of the land of this case to the industry development of △△△, even though the victims failed to agree to the notice of the cancellation of the sales contract, while disposing of the land of this case to develop the industry of △△△, the land of this case did not take over the secured obligation of △△ Bank, and the defendants did not make the sale of the land to △△ Industrial Development, which led to the sale of the land by auction, as well as other factors such as the defendants' age, character, and behavior, motive, and sentencing.