1. Around July 25, 2011, the victim C-related defendant acquired a property interest equivalent to the same amount by failing to pay the construction cost, even though he/she did not intend or have ability to properly pay the construction cost even if he/she requested construction work to the victim C, the victim’s representative director F was “to obtain a loan of 30 billion won from a bank as collateral for the hotel building, and to receive a loan from a bank as soon as he/she would immediately pay the construction cost after obtaining a loan from a hotel building as collateral,” although he/she had the victim perform construction work equivalent to KRW 25,00,000 from around that time until August 7, 2011.

2. On August 24, 2011, the injured party G-related Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 30 billion to a bank as security of a hotel, even if the injured party’s actual representative H did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost even if requesting construction work to the injured party G-related company. However, the victim’s actual representative H obtained a pecuniary benefit equivalent to the same amount by failing to pay the construction cost, even though the victim had the injured party paid construction work for KRW 14,897,00 from around that time until August 29, 2011.

3. On September 26, 2012, the victim I-related Defendant: (a) the victim I-related Defendant did not have the intent or ability to fully repay the money from the victim I even if he borrowed money from the victim I; (b) the traffic accident occurred by calls from the victim; and (c) the victim borrowed KRW 1,00,000 as it tried to complete the traffic accident in cash; and (d) the victim would immediately be able to obtain a loan from a bank as security for the hotel; and (e) the victim would have been 50,000 won on the same day.