1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant and the victim C purchased the real estate through joint investment and then sold it to divide the difference in the market price by half. On February 8, 2003, the Defendant and the victim purchased the housing of 605 square meters prior to D, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the housing of 665 square meters and its 20 million won above (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with the purchase price of 420 million won. The Defendant and the victim paid 235 million won out of the purchase price and paid 184.5 million won to the victim’s money and paid the remaining 184.5 million won in the name of the Defendant for convenience on January 9, 2007.

The Defendant, as seen above, received a loan of each of the instant real estate as collateral in order to pay personal debts with the fact that each of the instant real estate was registered as ownership in the name of the Defendant.

Around March 26, 2007, the Defendant borrowed KRW 55 million from the Seocho Saemaul Community Fund, which is located in the jurisdiction of Suwon-si, which is located in Suwon-si, to set up a right to collateral against each of the instant real property, which is managed for the victim as collateral, with respect to each of the instant real property for the victim. From that time until September 28, 2010, the Defendant embezzled each of the instant real property by setting up a right to collateral against financial institutions and bond companies, including the attached list of crimes, for eight times until September 28, 2010, totaling KRW 470,000,000,000 from financial institutions and bond companies, and embezzled each of the instant real property.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant and the defense counsel jointly purchased each of the instant real estate with the victim, and the Defendant agreed to conclude a sales contract and a transfer of ownership registration in the name of the Defendant alone. Since such circumstance was known to the seller, such circumstance constitutes “a malicious contract title trust.”

Therefore, the defendant is the victim.