Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 7, 2007, the Defendant acquired part of the shares in the “D D D D D D D” owned by the deceased, from the deceased for the purpose that “If the land zone is currently in progress for the above land, and if the expenses necessary therefor were to be incurred, the Defendant would make the registration of the transfer of ownership as one parcel by arranging the legal relationship with the above land” to the victim M who purchased part of the shares in the “D D D D D D D D” owned by the deceased, from the deceased, around November 15, 2007, the Defendant received from the victim M, who purchased from the deceased in around 1999, the amount of shares in the above land shall be KRW 1,00,000 on August 7, 2007 and KRW 200,000 on August 15, 191, and KRW 150,000 on June 16 of the same year, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the witness M in the third public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to M;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the investigative report (the text of the judgment), the text of the judgment (the 2008Ga group 146734), the entire certificate of registration

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are the facts charged that the defendant received a total of 4.5 million won from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, but this is argued to the effect that the above money was not acquired by deceit because of some of the remaining amounts of the sales contract for the above land concluded between the defendant and the injured party. However, in light of the purport of the decision of the Busan District Court Decision 2008Gadan 130272 (principal lawsuit) and 2009Gadan 9276 (Counterclaim) decided by the defendant, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the premise that the defendant had a duty to pay the remaining amount to the injured party is difficult to be recognized, and it

Rather, when comprehensively considering the above evidence, the defendant is not in the name of the victim, but in the name of the expense as stated in the facts charged.