Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On August 14, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim E to the effect that “D company” office located in Jindo-gun C, which is delegated by the victim E with the duties of growing agricultural products in the area of Jindo-gun, and “the Defendant cultivates drilling from 3,000 square meters located in Jindo-gun G, and the victim calculated 6,700 won per square year, and purchases the Defendant’s f,700 won.”

However, even if the Defendant received the sales amount from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to supply the victim by cultivating the distribution.

In addition to the above sales contract on the 22th day of the same month, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim of another dry field 1,100 square meters in Jindo-gun G, and purchased 3,000 square meters in 2,130 square meters in 1,100 square meters in 2,130 square meters in 1,100 and in 700 square meters in 2,200 square meters in 2,130.

The Defendant received KRW 18,961,00 in total from the victim on August 14, 2013, KRW 1,206,00 in total, KRW 4,179,00 in around August 15, 2013, KRW 1,482,50 in around August 20, 2013, KRW 6,867,50 in around October 31, 2013, KRW 18,961,00 in total, including KRW 5,26,00 in around December 26, 2013, even though the Defendant received KRW 18,961,00 in total due to the sales contract as of August 14, 2013, and thus acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 18,961,00 in total, KRW 14,00 in accordance with the sales contract as of August 14, 2013.

The defendant asserts that although the victim had an intention to grow up to 3,00 m3,00 m3 and to supply it normally, F would not be able to grow back to the wind used in another place.

However, the following circumstances recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated in this Court, namely, ① a dry field of 3,00 square meters as indicated in the ruling, is H’s land, and the dry field of 1,100 square meters is I’s land, and the dry field of 1,100 square meters among them is not the defendant but I’s dry field of 1,100 square meters.