The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, along with D, agreed to operate a business with the content of selling in lots after acquiring approximately 40 billion won from the Government-si in Gyeonggi-do (220 households) the entire Fambage complex from the Government-si in Gyeonggi-do (State) with D, the representative director of D.C.

The Defendant received five of 50 households' F loan loan sales contract, which was provided from E (State) representative G as collateral for the conclusion of the above acquisition contract, for the purpose of securing its own business investment deposit, and thought that he has the sales contract with the third party at will to acquire the sales price by arbitrarily selling it to the third party.

On October 28, 2008, the Defendant, through J, sold to the victim K at the Government-Si of Gyeonggi-do, the F loan 105 Dong 201 to KRW 120,000,000,000.

First of all, it was suggested to the effect that if 60 million won is paid as down payment and intermediate payment, ownership will be transferred within 60 days.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the right to enter into a contract for sale in lots with the third party as the above sale contract that should be kept as security, and at the time the creditors possessed F lending and exercise the right of retention, and the building name lawsuit is pending, and the owner of the certified copy of the register is registered in the name of the E(State) in the name of the E(State), and there was no intention or ability to transfer the ownership as agreed upon to the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim through J, received the total amount of KRW 60 million, including KRW 10 million around October 31, 2008, KRW 20 million around November 1, 2008, and KRW 10 million around December 8, 2008.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the duly admitted factual witness M, J’s statements in this Court, D’s partial statements in this Court, and evidence Nos. 1 to 3 submitted by the defense counsel, the following facts are recognized:

(1) Do Government-si F Lendingage (hereinafter referred to as “this”).