The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

- Of the judgment of the court below, the error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the guilty portion of the judgment below ① “K (hereinafter “K”) and “Agreement of Newly-Built-dong (hereinafter “Agreement of this case”) made between K and the victim M have been drawn up by K’s representative by borrowing money from the victim M, and the J as a claim security agreement against it. As such, the legal nature of the obligation to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to be borne by K under the agreement of this case is “the promise of real payment” and the obligation to drive away from the content of the said agreement is merely “one’s own business.”

② Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the sales contract was concluded between K and the victim M at the time of disposing of the land in Gangnam-gu Seoul, S, T, U, and V and the neighboring land of I, AM, N, and New I, N, and AO (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the land in the vicinity thereof, the Defendant did not know that the sales contract was concluded between K and the victim M at the time of selling the land in question. Therefore, there was no intention to commit breach of trust.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Public prosecutor or misunderstanding of legal principles - Some sectional owners, including victims E, D, and F, who were sectional owners of HGD located on the lands of Gangnam-gu Seoul, S, T, U, and V (hereinafter “HGD”) in the lower judgment, entered into a contract with N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) to remove each of the detached houses located on the lands of HGD and its neighboring I, AM, N, and AO and remove the detached houses on the lands of this case on the lands of this case, and set the term “N” is not a simple contract, but a “one kind of implementation contract”.

However, N accepted all agency and construction works related to the same person as the same person in the event of destroying and newly constructing multi-family housing in accordance with the “Dong Ho-ho Agreement,” and N is the same.