1. On October 30, 2014, the Defendants made a false statement in the OE operated by the Victim F in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, that “The Defendant would have a 200 million won electronic bill ( issuer G corporation) at the face value received as payment for the work at the trading office. As the Defendants would obtain approval on the due date, the Defendants would settle the outstanding amount of KRW 54,874,060 and would request the payment in cash in excess of KRW 142 million.”

However, in fact, the above bill was not a prior bill of exchange, but a loan bill, which was received by the customer.

As above, the Defendants: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received the outstanding amount from the victim on October 30, 2014; (c) KRW 42 million on or around October 31, 2014; (d) KRW 60 million on or around October 31, 2014; and (e) KRW 140 million on or around November 3, 2014, KRW 40 million on or around November 3, 2014; and (e) received the outstanding amount from the victim under the pretext of the difference.

2. On January 26, 2015, the Defendants, at the above OEt operated by the victim, stated that “The Defendants would have a 50,000 won electronic bill (the issuer H Co., Ltd.) at the face value 5,000 won received as construction cost at the trading office. As such, the Defendants would have to obtain approval at the maturity, they would settle accounts of the outstanding amount of KRW 24,738,340 and pay the difference of KRW 20,000 in cash.”

However, in fact, the above bill was not a prior bill of exchange, but a loan bill, which was received by the customer.

The Defendants, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the injured party the outstanding amount of KRW 20 million around January 26, 2015 under the pretext of the remaining difference after repaying the outstanding amount with the said bill.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Protocol concerning the Interrogation of Suspect against the Defendants (F)

1. Copy of the police statement made to I;

1. Details of the transfer of funds, and detailed information on the electronic bill;

1. Investigation Report (hereinafter “Investigation Report”) (hereinafter “The Defendants”) 5, 7, 13, the Defendants and their defense counsel believed each of the instant bills to be a normally issued bill rather than a financing bill, and did not entirely anticipate that each of the instant bills was due.