In the office located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City around August 28, 2013, the Defendant stated the facts charged of the Victim C corporation as E, but according to the evidence as seen below such as a copy of the passbook and a written complaint, the victim who remitted the amount of damage to the Defendant is C corporation and E is the representative director of the above corporation. On the other hand, even if the victim is otherwise recognized, there is no difference in basic facts, such as the date and time of the crime, amount of damage, method of the crime, etc., and there is no concern that there may be no substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6876, Aug. 23, 2002).

It is known that funds related to the purchase of D development project site are urgently needed, and the victim E representative director E will receive a loan of KRW 3 billion from a flaging away as a security of the museum's articles, while allowing the flag to operate a natural history museum at the strengthening of the land.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in the above museum, the defendant was aware that the above museum was in a difficult situation to obtain a normal loan due to the overdue wage problem, and he thought that the museum would be used as living expenses, entertainment expenses, etc. even if he received an appraisal fee from the injured party, so he did not have an intention or ability to return the money to the injured party.

The Defendant, as above, received KRW 25 million from the post office account in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant as the appraisal fee from the damaged person on August 28, 2013 and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Part of each statement of the E and F in the second suspect examination protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1.Each.