On March 1, 201, at around 13:00, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that the Defendants were employed as the person in charge of the above factory and paid KRW 300,000 per month if they were employed by the Defendants in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to sell to the victim H, “(State) Korean corporation,” and the Defendants did not sell taxes. However, even if the Defendants sold the above company, a factory owned by the G Chinese corporation, located in China, did not sell the said company. Therefore, if the Defendants borrowed the money to pay taxes, they were employed as the person in charge of the above factory, and would immediately pay the loan upon the sale of the Korean corporation.”

The fact is that the victim was employed as the person in charge of the above Chinese factory and did not have the intent or ability to make a monthly payment. The (ju) G-related debt was sold to the above company in the amount of KRW 4 billion, and there was no intention or ability to pay the borrowed amount to the victim.

The Defendants conspired to induce the victims as such and to induce them to do so and (I) on June 8, 201, with the deposit account (I) in the bank name of the G from the damaged person for the purpose of borrowing funds;

6.9.17 million won, etc. which was remitted to 22 billion won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and J;

1. The part concerning the statements made by H and J in the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Part concerning the statement of the above defendant in the police interrogation protocol (two times) concerning the defendant B

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certificate of borrowed money, a plan for repayment of secured borrowed money, and a certificate of account of each member transaction;

1. The Defendants: (a) the pertinent legal provisions of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: the Defendants, who committed employment with the victim who had been faced with economic difficulties due to the lack of a certain occupation for a considerable period of time in the sentencing of Article 347(1) and Article 30(a) of the Criminal Act, are highly likely to commit the crime in light of the contents of the instant crime and the manner of deception.