In fact, the Defendant was under auction for the real estate located in Sejong City, which was owned in his/her own under the name of G, and was delegated only to use the name of G for the auction procedure, and did not have been delegated to G for the preparation of a fair certificate to the effect that G bears obligations. The above real estate value was not so significant and the creditors did not have any balance that the Defendant is entitled to receive if he/she received dividends in the auction procedure.

Nevertheless, on March 2014, the Defendant: (a) owned a real estate in the name of H “I” to F, and (b) owned by a real estate owner in the auction procedure for the real estate in the name of H; (c) was entitled to receive KRW 80 million as dividends; (d) if he/she borrowed money to the Defendant, he/she would prepare a fair deed with G as a debtor, and pay his/her debt by receiving dividends at the auction.

In other words, as if the defendant has the authority to prepare a fair deed with the obligation of KRW 100 million to F in the name of G, the defendant obtained KRW 100 million from F and acquired it by fraud.

2. The judgment prosecutor instituted the instant prosecution on the premise that the subject who received KRW 100 million from F is the Defendant.

In that sense, the Defendant asserted that he borrowed money from F is only D and E, and the Defendant merely guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation within the limit of KRW 50 million. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was not proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant was given KRW 100 million from F.

(a)F. M.E.;