However, since the defendant did not have any authority in connection with the reconstruction of the apartment, even if he received money from the injured party, he did not have the ability to transfer the right to purchase or remove the apartment unit to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) by deceiving the victim from the victim, 50 million won to the account in the name of one bank account in C on the same day; and (c) acquired 20 million won to the post office account in the name of the Defendant.

2. The Defendant, from an investigative agency to this court, was carrying on the F-related real estate development project with himself/herself.

G or C’s request to introduce the removal company in connection with the reconstruction of the apartment building, and only introduced D to the president of H and at the time of H and C, and there was no her fluencing that he/she transferred D the right to sell the apartment building on behalf of the head of G or C, and he/she also argued to the effect that C was aware that he/she had been aware that he/she had the said right at the time.

The purport of the facts charged in this case is to transfer the above rights held by C even though the defendant did not have any authority in connection with the reconstruction of the E apartment and was unable to transfer the right to sell the apartment in lots to D and the right to remove the apartment.

D. The record reveals that the defendant has the right to sell by proxy or remove by proxy as follows:

It is only a frank, and any right related to the reconstruction of E apartment, including the right of sale by proxy and the right of removal in fact.