Defendant 1 and one other

Masong-young

Attorney Lee Jong-hwan et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one and half years.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of Defendant 1’s breach of trust and Defendant 2 are acquitted, respectively.

A summary of the judgment against Defendant 2 shall be publicly announced.

Defendant 1, around August 11, 2004, agreed with Nonindicted 2 and Gwangju City, to purchase (number 5 omitted) through (number 12 omitted) (number 12 omitted) forest land (excluding lot number 6 omitted) and 33 forest land (excluding (number 7 omitted) to 6.180 million won, Defendant 1 did not have any intention or ability to complete the registration of transfer of ownership on forest land under the same Ri (number 4 omitted), even if he did not have the right to dispose of forest land under the same Ri (number 4 omitted).

Defendant 1, around September 17, 2004, at the △△△△△△ real estate consulting office located in the Sinpo-ri (number 22 omitted) Sinpo-Eup, Gwangju, through Nonindicted 14 and 13, concluded a sales contract with the victim Nonindicted 1, who is a real estate intermediary, on the part of the real estate broker, for the payment of the balance to Nonindicted 2, who is the owner of the forest land in the Sinpo-si (number 4 omitted), may transfer ownership. The document necessary for the registration was received from Nonindicted 2, and thus, the victim and the victim concluded the sales contract for the said forest.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim as the down payment on the same day as the down payment, KRW 180 million as the intermediate payment on the 22th of the same month, and KRW 126 million as the remainder on October 21 of the same year, under the pretext of the balance, KRW 326 million. [20 million]

1. Statements made by Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of trial on the 13 and 14 occasions;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 2, 5, 1, 13, 14, and Defendant 2

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 (including the statement section of Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2) and prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 14 (including the statement section of Nonindicted 13)

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (including Nonindicted 2, 5, and 15 statements) and each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 14, and 13 against Defendant 1

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 15

1. A copy of each police protocol on Nonindicted 1, 2, and 15, and of the police protocol on Nonindicted 2

1. A copy of the register (number 4 omitted), each real estate sales contract, each deposit certificate, etc., each additional contract, and a copy of party inquiry protocol (2006da50160);

1. Investigation report (documents appended to the application for provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (Consideration of Deposit of Part of Money for Victims)

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On August 11, 2004, Defendant 1, at the office of "○○○○○○○○○○○○○○," located in the Sinpo-si, Gwangju, sold 2 parcels of forest land to the victim Nonindicted 3 in Gwangju, for the total purchase price of KRW 512,60,00,000, in total, KRW 276,400,000, in the name of the down payment, intermediate payment, and part of the remainder, was delivered from the victim. Thus, even though the Defendants were liable to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure for the said two parcels of forest land, the Defendants conspired to act in violation of their duties in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and its branch office, and the Sungnam-do, and the registry office, in violation of their duties, acquired the maximum debt amount of KRW 204,00,000, and the amount equivalent to KRW 4008,000,00 property interest to the victim [the equivalent to the maximum debt amount of KRW 2006,2000]

B. The Defendants: (a) jointly purchased the forests and fields (number 3 omitted); (b) but the purchase price was insufficient; (c) conspired to borrow the said forests and fields as collateral and raise funds; (d) on August 11, 2004, at the Plaintiff’s real estate agent office, Nonindicted 4 sold one parcel of forest and fields owned by Nonindicted 2 to the victim Nonindicted 4 in the purchase price for KRW 310,80,000,000, and received the full amount from the victim; and (d) despite the fact that there was no security right such as collateral security right such as collateral security right in accordance with the sales contract, the Defendants breached their duties, and subsequently, did not borrow approximately KRW 1,00,000,000 from Nonindicted 6 as collateral, thereby acquiring the maximum claim amount of the said forest and field amount of KRW 204,000,000 with respect to the said forest and field as collateral and acquired the said maximum claim amount of KRW 307,006,00.

2. Determination:

On the other hand, if no land transaction permission has been obtained with respect to the sale and purchase of land within the land transaction contract, the sale and purchase contract is null and void, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the seller has a duty to cooperate with the buyer in the registration of transfer of ownership for the buyer. Thus, even if the seller is obligated to cooperate with the transaction party to the land located within the permitted area, it shall not be deemed to be another person's business (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2891 delivered on February 9, 1996). According to the results of the inquiry into the Gwangju City Gwangju City's Gwangju City's Gwangju City's Gwangju City's Gwangju City's Gwangju City's Incheon Metropolitan City's Incheon Metropolitan City's Incheon Metropolitan City's Incheon Metropolitan City's new market, (number 3 omitted), (number 1 omitted), (number 10 omitted), and since the victim of this case's victim is not yet authorized, this part of the facts charged cannot be maintained on the premise that the defendants is a person handling another's business.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant 1, the point of each breach of trust and the facts charged against Defendant 2 fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against Defendant 2 pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is publicly announced

Judges Kim Jong-soo