무고
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On September 20, 2009, the Defendant, along with E, prepared a promissory note with the issuer as the Defendant and E, face value of KRW 65 million, and the payee as F and G (hereinafter “F, etc.”) at a notary office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant issued a notarized deed, and the F, etc. received a seizure and collection order with respect to the Defendant’s deposit claims on November 5, 2009, with the title of execution.
Around December 16, 2009, the Defendant: “F et al. started to drive away from the building owner due to long-term default on the rent of L hotels leased and operated by F. F. F.F., around August 20, 2009; “I will return to the owner of the hotel if I wish to prepare a certificate of loan of KRW 65 million; I would make the Defendant prepare a certificate of loan of KRW 65 million to F.F., etc. on September 20, 2009; “I will return the certificate of loan of KRW 65 million to F. F., etc.; I would make the Defendant use of a certificate of loan of KRW 65 million; and “I will return the certificate to F.I.D., if I.D. demand notarial acts by the owner of the hotel building; and on the basis of this, I would make the Defendant notarized by writing a promissory note; and, on the basis of this, I would like to have the Defendant obtain the Defendant’s deposit in the bulletin board of the Anti Rights & Civil Rights Commission.”
2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that “The rent of a L hotel operated by F, etc. has been driven away due to a long-term default, and thus, if preparing a formal loan certificate, it will only show it to the owner of the L hotel building and return it to him/her,” the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion is based on trust, preparation of a loan certificate, preparation of subsequent bills, and the authentication thereof.”
However, F, etc. is actually based on the Notarial Deed and is against the Defendant.