To the extent that the facts charged and the basic facts are identical and are not likely to substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, specific facts are partially recognized differently from those charged.

The Defendant, as the vice president of the company B (the name of the representative director C and hereinafter referred to as “stock company”), was engaged in the business of importing and selling Aluminum aluminium by opening a sub-credit under the name of the above company.

On November 201, the Defendant, upon D’s recommendation, opened a credit guarantee letter under the name of Company E, and received and sold Aluminum ingumum, and failed to repay the credit loans equivalent to approximately KRW 180 million, and was unable to operate the said company no longer. After approximately two months, the Defendant entered D’s office, while gaining access to D’s office and benefiting from the practice of the business of importing and selling Aluminum ingum ingums using the credit, but did not have any funds to conduct the said business and lack information and knowledge.

In such a situation, the Defendant planned to engage in the business of importing and selling Aluminium by using another person’s name on February 2, 2012, and the B representative director C provided that “B shall allow the importation and sale of Aluminium in the name of B. B and shall not cause any loss” and delegated the authority of C to engage in the business of importing and selling Aluminium in the name of B.

When the business planned by the defendant deposits about 50% of the L/C price and imports Aluminum price in the name of B, the importer borrowed from D and deposited the security money equivalent to the approximately 50% of the L/C amount to be deposited in the bank, and the bank issued the L/C (L/C) and has already been brought in the Austria's coastwise store in Incheon Customs house, and the supplier of the foreign country.