A. The victim M agreed to pay construction cost by receiving a loan from the contractor at the time of entering into a contract on April 26, 201. The victim M agreed to receive a pen construction cost in the event that the victim did not have the ability to pay the construction cost, the victim knew that P, the original contractor, would not have been able to pay the construction cost, and that the victim would have been aware that the defendant would have paid the purchase price for the land in this case, and that the victim would have been aware that he would have received a written consent from the land owner. The defendant, the victim, and the victim agreed to pay the construction cost by receiving the loan from the contractor at the time of construction from the financial institutions in six instances of the pentn-gunn-Gun and three lots (hereinafter “the land in this case”). In light of the fact that P, the original contractor, would have been omitted from the above construction work, the victim would have been able to pay the construction cost, the victim would have been able to have been able to pay the construction cost to the defendant, and the defendant would have been 300 won.

B. Although the Defendant, at the time of cancelling the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) under the name of the victim C (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) which was established on the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the site of the public prosecutor’s construction site, had a large number of civil petitions against the Corporation at the time of cancelling the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) and had the victim cancel the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”), the Defendant deceivings the victim as if all would have been netly carried out, and