The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that there was an agreement between the Defendant and the buyer on the important matters of the sales contract on December 23, 2013, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant sold the status as an occupant specified in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “right to sell in lots”) within the period of restriction on resale. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In order to establish the relevant legal doctrine, there is a need for a mutual agreement between the parties to enter into the relevant legal doctrine, and such mutual agreement should not be required with respect to all matters constituting the content of the relevant contract, but there is a specific agreement on the essential or important matters, or at least an agreement on standards and methods that may specify the future specifically.

On the other hand, the sales contract is established by an agreement between the parties regarding the transfer of the property right by the seller and the payment of the price to the other party under the agreement to transfer the property right by the other party to the other party. The sale object and the price are not necessarily determined at the time of the conclusion of the contract, but are sufficient if the method and criteria are determined specifically even after the conclusion of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34432, Apr. 26, 1996; 2005Da39594, Nov. 24, 2006).