Defendants are innocent and each of them dismissed an application for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case refers to the following purport: (a) Defendant A: (b) the representative of the sales agent company; (c) Defendant B, the business employees of the said company; and (d) the Defendants conspired with the Defendant, around May 18, 201, in the model house of the Gu-U.S. G building model; (b) Defendant B, the victim H found to be the Gu-U.S. model of the said model house, stating that “When entering into an officetel sales contract, she will only receive the down payment and resell the instant contract, she would receive the down payment at a premium of three million won.” (c) Defendant A also stated to the same purport.

However, in fact, the Defendants did not intend to resell even if they concluded a contract for the sale of an officetel with the victim and receive the down payment from the victim.

In collusion, the Defendants received KRW 1,182,40,000 from the victim to the account in the name of KB Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., the said officetel operator on the same day from the victim, and acquired KRW 13,182,400 in total by transfer from the victim to the account in the name of KB Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., the said officetel sales proceeds manager.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants promised to resell an officetel that the victim had concluded a contract for sale to a third party from the investigative agency to the above court, despite the absence of the intent or ability to resell it to the said officetel, and did not receive the down payment from the victim.

B. In light of the fact that the victim entered into a sales contract only for the purpose of resale marginal profit without the intention of selling the instant officetel, there is doubt as to whether the Defendants did not make a somewhat exaggeration about the resale of the instant officetel and the return on profit therefrom to the victim.

However, the Defendants, without intention or ability to resell the instant officetel to the victim, deceiving the victim through a resale undertaking, and then, ordered payment from the victim.