The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 4, 201, the Defendant: (a) in the office of “E Authorized Broker” operated by the Defendant located in Hanam-si around July 4, 201, the Defendant sold each of the instant land on the condition that “E Authorized Broker” (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) the victim F is the victim F with “24m2, G, and H, 148m2 and I 172m2m2m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”); (b) upon the designation of the J Housing Zone, the Defendant removed gas charging lawsuits existing in K with the designation of the Housing Zone, he would be required to newly obtain permission to install gas charging stations; and (c) there is a gas charging plan on each of the instant land.

The period for obtaining permission was required for four months to six months, and when gas charging is not permitted within the prescribed period, it is false that the bank will make an immediate refund by calculating the interest rate of the savings bank (12%) at the time during the period, and it was concluded a sales contract with the victim and the land at issue (hereinafter “instant contract”).

However, since each of the instant lands at the time of the real estate development restriction zone was farmland classified as “the land category”, the victim’s land could not be changed for two years from the time of its acquisition, and in order to install a gas charging lawsuit, the gas charging placement plan should be announced in the competent market. At the time, there was no notification of the gas charging placement plan at the time, and there was no intention or ability to obtain permission for gas charging installation since it was impossible to obtain permission for the gas charging installation of each of the instant lands in the situation where it was planned to publicly notify the gas charging placement plan in the future, and the Defendant had no intention or ability to obtain permission for gas charging installation. The Defendant already thought that the amount of debt, such as financial rights, exceeds KRW 1.2 billion, and the down payment received from the damaged party was also used for the Defendant’s business fund and the Defendant’s debt repayment, etc., and thus, the down payment cannot be