The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On February 20, 2006, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D to sell the amount of KRW 15,000,000,000,000, out of the above payment, of KRW 75,000,00,000, which is the remainder after subtracting the previous loan from the payment, from the amount of KRW 1,778,000,000,000, which is owned by the Defendant.

In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant received full payment of KRW 60,000,000 from the victim on February 24, 2006 and KRW 15,000,000 from the victim on March 10, 206, and accordingly, the Defendant received full payment from the victim on March 10, 2006. Therefore, there was a duty to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above land.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in violation of his duties, sold to the Korea Rural Community Corporation on May 25, 201 with respect to E-Y 1,778 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 2011 with respect to the land size of 4,030 square meters in the Daejeon District Court Support. On March 22, 2012, the registration of the creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 70,000,000 won in the light-si Agricultural Cooperative on March 22, 2012. On May 22, 2013, the Defendant’s wife as the debtor and registered the creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 52,00,000,000 won in the light-si Agricultural Cooperative as the debtor, the scope of land was complete in full and the duration of the superficies creation registration was completed for 30 years from the same date.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 90,000,000 in the market price of the above land, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

2. The judgment is based on Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, which is a crime falling under Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 361 of the Criminal Act, where the victim and the defendant have a relationship of blood as prescribed in the above provision, a public prosecution can be instituted only upon the victim's complaint. According to the records, the victim D is the spouse by marriage of the defendant who does not live with the husband of H