On June 2007, the Defendant sold the victim C’s land equivalent to KRW 600 million, and transferred ownership normally, and then the victim d, E, and F acquired the ownership through the sale of the land owned by another by another person through the trust of the Defendant due to the said transaction, and acquired the proceeds therefrom.

On July 2007, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim to sell the said land for KRW 300 million, when the victim’s “H” land was the land owned by the Defendant as if it were the land owned by the Defendant.

However, the above land was not only land owned by I, but also the defendant entered into a contract with J as delegated by I on November 8, 2007 for the purchase of the above land after the contract was entered into with the victim, but it did not pay the remainder of KRW 30 million until December 31, 2007, which was the date of payment of the down payment, since the defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 200 million. Thus, there was no intention or ability to transfer ownership of the above land to the victim.

Around January 3, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 30 million won in total from the date and time to April 21, 2010, from the victim to the account in the name of K, the Defendant, as the down payment, to the account in the name of K, the Defendant, and received delivery of KRW 290 million in total over several times from the said date and time to April 21, 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness L;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against M and J;

1. The Defendant asserts that each real estate sales contract, each head of a Tong, each certificate of deposit without a passbook, each deposit certificate, each contract, a copy of a register, a copy of a passbook, a certificate of passbook transaction, and a letter of certificate, each of the documents, and the defendant and the defense counsel did not deceiving the victim, and that 100 million won out of the amount received from the victim was denied the charges

First of all, the argument that the victim has the borrowed money during the payment is based on the evidence mentioned above.