The defendant is a person who works as a brokerage assistant at an authorized real estate broker office.

1. On May 201, the Defendant involved in the fraud of the Guri-si Do-si, at a non-permanent point in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) around May 201, the Defendant gave the victim C a good loan of KRW 23 million in Guri.

The purport was that the purchase would lead to the price of the market.

However, in fact, the defendant's actual purchase price of Guri-si D Building E, which was arranged by the defendant, is KRW 4.7 million, such as KRW 182 million and real estate brokerage commission, and KRW 2.7 million in total, and KRW 189.4 million in certified judicial scrivener's fees, but the defendant made a false statement to the victim with the intent to acquire the difference by fraud.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above and allowing the victim to pay a total of KRW 23 billion, and acquired the difference between the purchase price and the incidental expenses.

2. On June 28, 201, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 40 million to the victim since he/she borrowed KRW 40 million from the victim C even though he/she borrowed around June 28, 201.

From that point of time, the Defendant, during the period from February 2012 to March 2012, 201, borrowed a good loan to the victim during redevelopment but the purchase price is equivalent to KRW 162 million.

The purport was that if a loan 50 million won set forth in the loan is succeeded to, and 673.1 million won is forwarded to, down payment and intermediate payment, the remainder of 45 million won is paid as a repayment of an existing obligation, and the purchase price shall be paid to the owner of the house.

However, in fact, even though the actual purchase price of 15 million won in the 1st floor G G Ho, Seo-gu, Daejeon, which the defendant arranged, the defendant had the intention to avoid paying 40 million won for the victim's debts, and to make a false statement to the victim with the intention to acquire the difference in the purchase price.

After all, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is the defendant against the victim.