The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 2009, the Defendant purchased 107, 108, and 109 units in Samsungdong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and planned to operate the frequency with the victim’s mother C’s mother as “The Defendant purchased 107, 108, and 109 units in the Dong-si, Gyeonggi-do, and planned to borrow 108 units in the name of the first child and borrowed 108 units in the name of the first child.

And interest shall be paid at the same time.

“.....”

However, the defendant did not have the ability to pay acquisition tax and registration tax even if he obtained a loan in the name of the victim C, so there was no intention or ability to transfer the registration in the name

The defendant deceivings the victim's mother D as above and causes the victim to do so.

7. 10. Around 10.10., at the Seongbuk-gu Saemaeul Saemaul Cooperative, a loan of KRW 260,000,000, and the above commercial building ownership of KRW 108 was transferred to the defendant's Dong F, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the above amount.

2. The judgment of the court, the defendant's transfer of ownership No. 108 to D in the name of C

D's statement as to the fact that there is no material evidence such as the contract, etc., and that the defendant paid KRW 20 million to D around July 20, 2009, it is also recognized as D. In light of the fact that ownership has changed due to the transfer of ownership in F's name, the defendant did not have the ability to pay acquisition tax and registration tax.

On November 22, 2010, which was prepared by the defendant at D's request, the defendant stated that "the defendant obtained a loan by lending the name of C" and that the defendant will accept the registration of transfer of ownership in C.

D. The loan was executed in C’s name because there is no finding of the content of the loan, and there was no corresponding collateral security at the same time with the execution of the loan.

as soon as possible, C suffered losses

In light of the fact that it is impossible to readily conclude, D’s statement alone is as shown in the facts charged.