A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, victims D, E, and F respectively.

Punishment of the crime

[Basic Facts] On October 201, 2001, E et al., a sectional owner of HD (9 households) of Gangnam-gu Seoul and four lots of land outside Gangnam-gu, decided to construct a new 32 household unit of the above land after consultation with four owners of detached houses, such as I, with four owners of detached houses, including I, and on February 19, 2002, he/she entrusted the construction to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) (hereinafter “K”) with the operation of J, and the existing HD owner agreed to transfer only one unit of new Ha, but only remaining shares of the land corresponding to the new HD unit area, and additionally pay or return the shares in comparison with the size of existing Ha and new Ha, and K shall sell 24 households of new 324 households, and appropriate the remainder as the construction cost, and appropriate it as the proceeds of K’s construction.

The original owners of HP, E, etc. entered into a construction contract with NP on December 1, 2001, but when NP renounced up construction in around 2001, K succeeded to the said construction contract with NP.

Accordingly, after the process of the new construction, K had completed it on July 2003 and sold 24 households among the 32 households of new Hadra 32 households to the victim M, etc., but it did not obtain approval for the use of new Hadra due to the legal dispute with D, etc., which was the owner of Hadra, and the existing Hadra owners and buyers moved into each household without obtaining approval for the use of Hadra in early 2004.

From around 208, the buyers who completed the occupancy in each household received a decision of provisional disposition against the owners of HD such as D to prohibit the disposal of the general household, and made it possible to register the preservation of ownership in the name of D and other HD owners at the request of the court.

Since the number of buyers later, the registration of ownership preservation against D et al. is not consistent with the substantive relationship, they shall be cancelled and the number of buyers shall be cancelled.