On February 27, 2012, the defendant was introduced on February 27, 2012, the victim E who tried to construct a multi-family house with three floors on the south-gu D ground in the Southern-gu, Southern-gu.

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that, “G refined Land” in the “G Dried Land” of the victim’s operation located in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul. The Defendant: (a) opened a large number of wooden houses up to now; (b) built a house as a sampling; and (c) made users of the surrounding site to build a house as if he/she took the house, and (d) made users of the neighboring site report the privately placed site within three months from the commencement of the construction; (b) the Defendant would be able to complete the construction and move in.”

However, the Defendant did not have registered construction business under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and was not eligible to normally perform the construction work of multi-family house with the third floor. Even if he received construction payment from the injured party, he used it for personal purposes or used it as the construction cost of another construction site where the Defendant was in progress, and there was no intention or ability to undertake the construction work of multi-family house with the third floor using it as the construction cost of the victim's construction site

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for a new construction of a multi-family house with the victim for three months from the commencement date of the construction period, and on March 2, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for a new construction of a multi-family house with the victim for three months from the commencement date of the construction period, and on March 2, 2012, the amount of KRW 30 million as the contract deposit for the construction work on March 19, 2012, and KRW 90 million as the price for the construction work on March

5.3. The sum of KRW 140,000,000,000 as construction price, was remitted to the post office account in the name of the accused.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and I;

1. A and J’s copy, construction contract, construction contract (see May 22, 2012), construction work contract (see May 22, 2012) and account transfer receipt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do149, Mar. 2, 2012). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23920, Mar. 19, 2012>