The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal concluded a contract with F on July 29, 2013, after the lapse of the period of restriction on resale, for the resale of apartment units as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “right to sell apartment units”).

On July 22, 2013, within the period of restriction on resale, the Defendant received KRW 500,000,000 from a private broker E (hereinafter referred to as “fristium”), but a person who paid the said money to E is not the buyer, but the buyer, and it is merely the buyer’s pre-sale or the receipt of the down payment, and the Defendant, as seen above, had the resale of the instant parcelling-out right at the time of receiving the remainder of KRW 3 million from the buyer.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine on resale.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted similar to the above.

In light of the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) decided to sell the instant apartment sales right to F on July 22, 2013, within the period of restriction on the resale to F, with the intention of selling the instant apartment sales right at a premium of five million won; and (b) agreed with F on the essential elements or important matters of the sales of the instant apartment sales right; (c) however, it is reasonable to view that the circumstance in which the Defendant and F, after the expiration of the period of restriction on the resale, received an additional amount of three million won at a premium on July 29, 2013 (i.e., the total amount of eight million won) after the lapse of the period of restriction on the resale, was later modified by agreement between the Defendant and F.

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion is rejected and the facts charged are convicted.

B. Article 41-2(1) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13687, Dec. 29, 2015) provides that “The resident shall be the occupant of the housing or the housing constructed and supplied by the project owner.”