The Defendant received orders from the victims due to the relationship between the victim D and the land, and the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, F ground-based multi-family house owned by the victim, and Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu G ground-based housing construction.

On September 5, 2014, the Defendant requested the victim to pay the construction cost as a test for the said multi-family housing. On September 5, 2014, the victim received a loan of KRW 100 million from H as collateral for real estate under the victim’s family name.

After that, the victim delegated I with the duty of repayment of debt to H and the duty of cancellation of the mortgage on October 24, 2014, and transferred KRW 19 million to the above I to the above I in order to repay the above debt. When the defendant entered into the above G ground lease contract as an agent of the victim, he had the lessee transfer the lease deposit amount of KRW 85 million on October 25, 2014 to the above I.

Defendant 1 knew well that the said I received money as above should be used for the purpose of the victim’s debt repayment to H, the Defendant committed the said I, with the knowledge that the Defendant and the victim are in close relationship with each other, and that the Defendant is in charge of various duties of the victim on behalf of the victim in connection with the said construction work, and, on October 24, 2014, with the knowledge of the fact that the said I was in charge of various duties of the victim on behalf of the victim, the said I transferred money to the said I by telephone to the said I. It was called “the remittance of money in custody for the repayment of the obligation to H as the construction cost,” and was committed as if there was a consent of the victim.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have been permitted to use the above money from the damaged person for the purpose of the construction cost, etc., and upon receiving the money from the above I, the defendant shall repay his personal debt and pay it.