The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated C Co., Ltd., a real estate implementing and selling company.

1. Around January 28, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sales agency contract with the victim D and the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F at the above company office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the intent that “the business site of the officetel has already been secured, and the authorization and permission procedure remains for the landscape deliberation.” The Defendant’s fraud against the victim D was false statement to the effect that “The sales agency bond for the sales agency should be changed immediately.”

However, in fact, the Defendant failed to secure the ownership of the land to be newly built the above officetels and the commercial buildings at the time, and the procedure of authorization and permission was not well implemented, and the progress of the above sales business was extremely difficult to operate the above company, and even if receiving the deposit from the victim, it did not have the intent or ability to newly construct the officetels and the commercial buildings to make the purchase agency, and there was no ability to return the deposit to the victim in the future.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained KRW 15 million on the same day under the name of a security deposit for vicarious sale in lots from the victim, and obtained KRW 35 million on January 31, 201, and acquired KRW 50 million in total from the victim.

2. Around February 21, 2011, the Defendant against the victim G made a false statement to the effect that “The business site of an officetel and commercial building that is scheduled to be newly built in In Mancheon-gu F was already secured, and the authorization and permission procedure remains only for the landscape deliberation. The construction supervision of the said building is entrusted.” The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The amount of KRW 20 million is changed as the performance bond for the supervision contract.”

However, the defendant did not secure the ownership of the land to be newly constructed the above officetels and commercial buildings at the time, and the procedure of authorization and permission also does not proceed properly.