The defendant, as a representative director D, has constructed a multi-household E-Gu multi-household house at port.

On August 8, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Victim F to newly construct a multi-household house from the Victim F on April 9, 2013, and prepared an investment agreement to repay KRW 135 million including investment profits, etc. at the due date, but no change was made.

On April 17, 2013, the Defendant paid off multi-household 301, which is being constructed, in lieu of the foregoing, at the office D office located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant agreed to pay the sales price in full, and prepared a sales contract.

In accordance with the above agreement, even though there was a duty to implement the procedure to register the transfer of ownership of the above house to the victim, the defendant violated his duty and registered the transfer of ownership of the above house to the land trust company of Korea on January 9, 2015.

As a result, the defendant in violation of his duties acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 135 million, and caused the same damages to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the sales contract and trust ledger;

1. Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion of alternative imprisonment penalty

1. That the alleged defendant's registration of the transfer of ownership to the victim of the instant multi-household house 301 constitutes a promise to pay for substitute goods to the victim.

The obligation to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership of real estate in accordance with the promise for the repayment of real estate is an incidental requirement in order to achieve the ultimate purpose of the obligation to repay borrowed money, and it cannot be viewed as another person’s business in breach of trust

2. Review of the argument

A. The defendant suffered damage.