The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant paid 20 million won down payment to the victim G (the 40-year-old) who is a civil construction business operator (the 40-year-old-gun), by proposing that “it would create ground carbonization construction of a logistics warehouse site on the 13,152 square meters of land owned within the YY-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, the Hacheon-gun, the 2012-year-old-gun, the 2012-year-old-gun, the 13,000 square meters of land, and upon completion of the construction, the 60 million won of the remainder after receiving a security loan as the said H forest.”

However, in fact, the above H had been registered under the name of the Defendant C, the Defendant, and had already established the right to collateral security equivalent to the maximum debt amount of KRW 435,000,000 at the time, and the content of the above construction contract did not include drainage work. Therefore, even after the completion of the above construction work, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive loans and pay the remainder.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim take over the above construction work on June 30, 2012, and caused the victim to do so, did not perform the drainage construction work, and thus, did not pay any balance, and thus, acquired property profits equivalent to KRW 60 million at the market price by asserting that the Defendant did not pay any balance.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the complainant did not deceiving the complainant to own the 13,152 square meters of H forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and that the complainant did not pay the price due to the failure of the complainant to complete the construction work in accordance with the construction contract and did not defraud the construction cost without intent or ability to pay the construction cost.

On the other hand, the complainant stated in this court that "the defendant was aware that he had a name of the defendant at the time of entering into a contract from the beginning" and that "the defendant was aware that he had a name of the defendant at the time of entering into a contract at the beginning" as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case between the defendant and the complainant.