C shall be punished by a fine of 5 million won.

If the above defendant does not pay the fine, 50,000 won.

Defendant

C around March 4, 201, in the office of the J Licensed Real Estate Agent located in Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and even though 190,000 square meters per 3.3 square meters per 3.3 square meters, the trade price is 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters, and around that time, the victim A was paid KRW 17,000,000,000 from the victim, which is the difference in the trade price.

Accordingly, the above defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on real estate sales contracts;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. The portion not guilty of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the real estate intermediary with the trade name of “stock company L”, Defendant B is the general director of the above company, and Defendant C is the real estate broker with the port area. A.

On March 2011, Defendant C, a co-principal, was aware that he sold the instant land to the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from the Nam-gu K forest in South-gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and had Defendant C act as a broker for the instant land.

Defendant

C around March 14, 2011, at the time of formulating a real estate sales contract for M and the instant land, the Ministry of National Defense was well aware of the fact that the instant land owners and expropriation compensation consultation is underway.

At that time, Defendant A, while undergoing the procedure to purchase the instant land by the brokerage of Defendant C, promoted the resale of the instant land to the victims of the Ulsan Metropolitan Area.

Defendant

A and Defendant B became aware of the fact that the instant land was subject to an agreement on the compensation for expropriation with the Ministry of National Defense on May 9, 201, and even Defendant C confirmed this fact, Defendant C did not notify the victims of the fact that the instant land was under an agreement on the compensation for expropriation with the Ministry of National Defense.