The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant, in collaboration with the victim C and D in May 1997, purchased a total of 7,685 square meters, such as 4,646 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “Seoul Special Self-Governing CityF”), and made a change in the form and quality to develop approximately 1,000 square meters among them as a physical and scrapter around June 2007.

Around August 31, 2007, the Defendant set farmland preservation charges related to the first development (on a second development) at KRW 150,000,000, and received KRW 37,500,000 as farmland preservation charges related to the first development-related farmland development-related shares (Defendant 50%, victim 25%, and D 25%) from the above damaged person under the name of the first development-related farmland preservation charges, and around July 7, 2008, the Defendant was granted KRW 37,50,000 under the name of the second development-related farmland preservation charges related to the second development-related shares. The Defendant was granted KRW 37,50,000 under the name of the second development-related farmland preservation charges related to the second development-related shares.

However, with regard to the first development, the total amount of farmland preservation charges paid by the Defendant to Chungcheongnam-gun was KRW 98,613,90, and the first contribution due to the victim's investment shares was KRW 24,653,475, and with regard to the second development, the total amount of farmland preservation charges paid by the Defendant to Chungcheongnam-gun was KRW 90,330,300, and the second contribution due to the victim's investment shares was KRW 22,582,575, and the second contribution due to the victim's investment shares was received in excess of the victim's contribution at the time of the first payment.

In this regard, the defendant deceivings the victim by means of false statement to the effect that "the total amount of farmland preservation charges related to the development of scrapped farms is KRW 150,00,000,000," and he received 37,50,000 from the victim as the second development-related farmland preservation charges exceeding KRW 14,917,425 from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the amount he received to C on July 7, 2008 is KRW 50,000,000, and the Defendant did not know that the farmland preservation charge was excessive at the time when he received the above KRW 50,000,000, and thus, was fraudulent.