The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is clearly written in the indictment of the land and the above ground buildings located in B/C, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the land and the above ground buildings.

On the other hand, the defendant owned 2029/2219 shares, not all of the above land, but is deemed to have been stated as above for convenience.

(hereinafter “instant real estate”) is the owner of the instant real estate, and the instant real estate was under auction.

On August 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around August 1, 2015, at a “F” restaurant operated by the victim E in Gwangju Northern-gu; (b) “F” restaurant operated by the victim E, the husband of the victim and G, the husband of the victim, “I will withdraw the auction if the real estate in the Republic of Korea is under auction; and (c) the principal of the Saemaul

However, there is no money to withdraw the auction because of the absence of money.

As other persons are unclaimed to get auction, they shall repay to the Saemaul Bank of Korea the amount of KRW 20 million, which is equivalent to KRW 250,000,000,000, which includes the amount of money and shall take over the debt and transfer the ownership of the property.

“If the victim pays expenses incurred in withdrawing auction, etc., the victim showed an attitude that the victim seems to complete the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate.”

However, even if the Defendant received expenses from the injured party to withdraw an auction, the Defendant did not think that the Defendant would complete the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate in the purchase price of KRW 250 million.

On August 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) caused the victim to transfer KRW 19.67 million to the Saemaul Bank of Korea, under the pretext of the withdrawal of the auction of real estate around August 7, 2015; (b) decided to substitute KRW 2 million from the damaged party on July 6, 2015, borrowed from the damaged party for the cancellation of H’s right, as part of the purchase price; and (c) received KRW 1.19 million from the damaged party on August 7, 2015, in the name of the cancellation of H’s right.

Accordingly, the defendant acquires property benefits by deceiving the victim and acquires property.