The defendant is the representative director of a corporation for the development of a A industry, which is mainly engaged in the construction of the building located in the Busan Bk building at the Busan Urban Transit Authority. The fact is that the underground shopping district between Busan Urban Transit Authority and Busan Urban Transit Authority was not selected as the business owner, and that there was no right to sell the underground shopping district to be installed at the same time on October 24, 2006, and the above underground shopping district was applied to the victim B's right to sell the above underground shopping district from Busan Urban Transit Authority. The above underground shopping district was paid 20,000,000 won as the down payment, and the above underground shopping district was first sold in lots. The defendant received 20,000,000 won from the victim from the above shopping district under the name of the contract for sale in lots, which was obtained from the victim to the above 400,000,000 won from the day of receiving the above shopping district from the victim to December 21, 2006.

2. Determination:

In this case, each written statement of the police preparation, G, H, and K preparation, each written statement, each written statement, etc. prepared by the police with respect to B, D, E, and F as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, but even according to each of the above evidence, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant, a victim, obtained the above money from the victims on the ground that the Defendant, “in-house, the victim, J, Q, H, K, and F, obtained the right to sell the above money from Busan Traffic Corporation.”

Rather, comprehensively taking account of witness B, D, E, G, H, K, Q, and R’s statements, the above victims sought an explanation of the current status of the sales business license from the Defendant, D, R, etc., and then, the victims paid 20,000,000 won each in the form of raising the necessary business funds to the Defendant, and if the Defendant is selected as a sales business owner, they agreed to sell a commercial building with a good commercial prospect, such as where the victims are located at the entrance of the underground shopping district. In this case, the above 20,000,000 won should be replaced with the sales contract amount. If the Defendant is not selected as a sales business owner, it can be acknowledged that the victims agreed to return the above money to the victims. According to the above recognition fact, the victims did not pay the above money by deception from the Defendant, but it is reasonable to view that the victims have obtained a geographical advantage or paid the above money for the purpose of selling in advance, etc., with a geographical location obtained from the Defendant who is under shortage of funds.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act