The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

① Therefore, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the cancellation of the first sale contract and the settlement of the price, by explaining to the effect that only the victim may cancel the repayment of the secured debt amount by the victim’s repayment of the secured debt amount under the name of I.

Even if this does not cause any obstacle to the effectiveness of the second sale contract and the performance of the obligations therefrom, it does not constitute a deception, and there was no intention that the defendant would acquire the amount of the down payment by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant concluded a sales contract of KRW 6.5 billion for “F, G land and building located in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan, the Busan, the Busan, the real estate brokerage office, and “E” as stated in the facts charged of the Defendant’s S appears to be a clerical error (Evidence No. 7 page, the trial record No. 108, 193 page) and “E” owned by the Defendant.

However, on December 19, 2014, prior to the conclusion of the above sales contract, the Defendant entered into a contract with H around December 19, 2014, to sell part of the above real estate to KRW 1.7 billion and received KRW 242 million in total as the name of contract deposit and intermediate payment. Of the above sales price, the remainder of the above sales price was a financing for a loan from a financial institution, and the financial institution was refused to grant loan approval and did not pay any balance, and there was a dispute between the Defendant and H on the grounds for the refusal of the above loan approval, and H was operated by the “L”, the actual purchaser of the sales contract as of December 19, 2014.