사기
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 10, 201, the Defendant, in the instant facts charged, completed a bridge construction project to enter the victim’s H and 7 lots of land, where the victim’s ownership of “F (9,620 square meters) and a total of two lots of land in Pyeongtaek-gun and G (14,479 square meters)”, at a certified judicial scrivener office located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do around June 10, 201, and will put one prefabricated-type house in a size of 60 square meters.
“A false representation was made.”
However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to complete the bridge construction or construct the prefabricatedd house even if he did not have the technology or fund to construct the bridge on the land of the victim even if he did not transfer the ownership of the land from the injured party.
Around June 13, 201, the Defendant: (a) obtained the registration of transfer of ownership from each of the above lands in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s investor I; and (b) acquired a total of KRW 436,500,000 in the market price by deceiving the victim as above; and (c) obtained a registration of transfer of ownership from the victim.
2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and the defendant were under the influence of the bridge construction to E, a complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") on the upper part of the general steel structure. The defendant and the defendant did not have a prefabricated-type house with 60 square meters or more, but had a prefabricated-type house with 60 square meters or more, and the defendant had a view to and ability to perform the above prefabricated-type civil engineering works and civil engineering works. However, the defendant did not have to permit the change of the Bridge to the method of construction of steel structure from the mencian method to the method of construction of steel structure. In addition, the defendant and the complainant did not properly proceed for the reason that the civil petitioners and complainants around the Bridge-type site did not interfere with the registration of the transfer of ownership in lieu of the payment of the construction price, and did not mislead the complainant on the ground that they did not interfere with the consent to the use of adjacent land to be used as the access road to the above land.
3...