The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) obtained the registration of ownership transfer on the E Apartment 202 and 902 (hereinafter “instant 202”; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant 202, including the instant 202 and 902, hereinafter “instant 202”); and (d) sold the instant 902, and (c) the Defendant would be provided with the instant 202, in lieu of the victim’s husband’s payment, if the Defendant is unable to pay the remainder of construction, etc. within 6 months from D; and (b) the Defendant would be provided with the instant 202, in lieu of the payment. As to the instant 202, the Defendant’s act is obviously expected to have obtained consent from the victim, and thus, the Defendant’s act is deemed unlawful either an act of embezzlement or a criminal intent of the victim or an constructive consent of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to constructive consent, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below and the court below asserted that there was a claim of KRW 100,404,076 against D as to each of the houses of this case at the time when the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 4, 2010 (i.e., KRW 33,404,076 Won for the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 27 million) but the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 33,404,076 for the construction cost of KRW 19,80,000 for landscaping construction cost and fence construction cost of KRW 33,40,000 for the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 33,40,000 for the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 33,404,076 (the defendant is the sum of KRW 1,045,000 for landscaping construction cost, KRW 9,350,000 for the fence construction cost of KRW 7.3 million for landscaping construction work).