The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant offered 201 to 204, 304, and 200 million won in total, which the Defendant agreed to receive payment in lieu of the construction price of H apartment in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) between K and H apartment; and (b) in the event of sale in lots to another person, K sold 304 of the instant apartment to the victim G without consultation with the Defendant, even though K agreed to consult with the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is guilty of the charges of this case that the defendant did not notify the other party of the purchase of the apartment 304 unit of this case, and thereby caused K to sell the apartment 304 unit of this case doublely to the victim G and to obtain property benefits equivalent to KRW 120 million. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below: ① the defendant provided the apartment of this case 201 to 204, and 304, which the defendant agreed to receive payment in kind, as collateral, to borrow a total of KRW 200 million and deliver a sales contract, power of delegation, investment agreement, etc. on the above apartment; ② The victim G stated that at the time of concluding the sales contract on the apartment of this case with K from the investigation agency to the court below on March 24, 2008, the defendant entered into the sales contract with K after obtaining confirmation that the victim may raise the number of houses that the victim wants among five bonds delegated by K from March 24, 208; ③ the victim stated that the defendant and the telephone communications of this case did not mean that the apartment of this case were sold by specifying 304 among the apartment of this case at the time of telephone communications with the defendant, but the defendant as the defendant was the victim of this case.