However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant sold the instant real property to F in KRW 160,000,000 at the E office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant real property”). On March 27, 2009, the Defendant sold the instant real property to F in KRW 160,00,000.

The Defendant was aware of the fact that the registration titleholder of the instant real estate was a national tax (a total of KRW 425,729,770) that much higher than the market price of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and, even if the instant real estate was established, it was well aware that the Defendant could not receive a loan even if it was set up a collateral security interest on the instant real estate.

On March 27, 2009, the Defendant concealed the above facts and caused the victim union to enter into a mortgage agreement on the instant real estate with G by making the debtor F in F, and issued KRW 133,00,000 as part payment to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in F on April 1, 2009.

Accordingly, the defendant had the victim union receive property from F by deceiving the victim union.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness I, J, F, and K;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made against L/M;

1. A certified copy of the register (No. 42);

1. A real estate sale contract (No. 43 No. 500)

1. An application for loan;

1. A contract for creation of collateral security;

1. The details of each default of national taxes (No. 50 No. 1133 of the evidence list);

1. Each appraisal statement (No. 51,58 No. 51);

1. Details of loan delivery and transactions;

1. A business agreement;

1. A criminal investigation report (No. 74 No. 54 of the evidence list) (the defendant and his defense counsel did not deceiving the victim's association;

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant was accused of the Victim Association.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is reasonable.