Therefore, although the court below should be found guilty of the facts charged of this case, there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. According to the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, upon the conclusion of the contract on May 14, 2009, obtained the transaction agreementD (the actual operator seems to be J) to transfer the total market value of the land, buildings, machinery, etc. to the LAF and acquired the land, building, machinery, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate, etc.”).

The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence as follows, i.e., ① the Defendant entered into a sales contract with K on July 31, 2008 and L with L to purchase the real estate of this case in order to realize the “environment-friendly marina” business, which he has claimed, but the promissory note paid as the down payment was in default (No. 2, No. 53, No. 55 of the evidence record), and ② the Defendant entered into a contract with L to purchase the real estate of this case again from L to L to L to purchase the real estate of this case on May 14, 2009, and thereafter, to transfer to G and H the entire “environment-friendly business,” which was difficult to procure the purchase price.

7.6. Change of the content into the actual purchaser of the above G and H into that effect, and the real estate of this case, etc. of this case, etc. of this case, which had been executed in advance to the F in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., No. 4, No. 15, No. 26, No. 5.