On October 12, 2009, the Defendant concluded a false statement to the effect that “The real estate price shall be KRW 16 million to the seller of the real estate,” when mediating to the victim E the sale and purchase of the D Apartment Model D apartment model, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan to the effect that “The real estate price shall be KRW 16 million to the seller of the real estate.”

However, the fact was that there was no intention of both the seller to receive money from the victim under the name of the victim and the broker was intended to have part of the premium.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 16 million won from the victim under his/her pretext as a premium.

2. The police statement of the judgment E and the criminal defendant's statement of the prosecutor's office are insufficient to recognize that the defendant told the seller (G) that he should pay the premium of KRW 16 million. In light of the fact that E did not confirm to whom the defendant's judgment belongs, E did not confirm to whom the defendant's judgment belongs, and in light of the fact that E paid the premium with the aim of pursuing the market price gains in the future (each of the above evidence), E cannot be deemed to have delivered the premium on the premise that it is paid to the seller in full, and in this respect, even if the defendant talks that he did not pay the premium to E, it cannot be deemed that E did not pay the premium, so it is difficult to view that the defendant obtained the premium by deceiving the defendant.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the above judgment against the defendant is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of