A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 30, 2004, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim F to sell for KRW 30,000,000,000 to the victim F the “Yajin-gun E-gun, Incheon” (hereinafter “the instant forest”) to be redeemed by the Defendant from the Namdong Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in a restaurant operated by the Defendant, located in Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, and the Defendant received KRW 30,00,000 as the price for the instant forest. Therefore, the Defendant’s duty to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership of the instant forest was incurred to the victim.

On June 24, 2004, the Defendant registered the transfer of ownership of the forest in question under the name of the Defendant, and in violation of the aforementioned duties, on March 12, 2012, the Defendant jointly registered the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of KRW 26,00,000,000, the debtor, and the agricultural cooperative with the Defendant and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security on March 12, 2012. On October 29, 2015, the Defendant jointly registered the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 24,00,000, the debtor, the debtor, and the agricultural cooperative with the Defendant and the right to collateral security.

As a result, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the secured amount of the instant forest land among the total amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, and suffered losses equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, H, I, and J;

1. Written appraisal by K appraiser;

1. Receipts:

1. Determination as to whether the loan-related documents and each investigation report (in 46 pages, individual published land price) constitutes a crime of breach of trust (1) is made on the nature of KRW 30 million in the holding that the forest price of this case was received as the forest price.

Therefore, although the defendant asserts that the above money is too excessive to the down payment, it is only limited to the unilateral market price, and it does not properly specify the details of the intermediate payment or the balance, as well as the whole purchase price.

If the defendant's lawsuit is followed, the amount shall be the amount between the parties in preparation for future performance, including the intermediate payment or the balance.