On July 25, 2015, the Defendant provided the victim E with a Switzerland option to purchase the company’s shares from F, a corporation in Korea, to its employees. The Defendant loaned KRW 40,000 to 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

On August 6, 2015, the victim called "," and "to purchase shares by exercising Stockholm options immediately if the Stockholm options were to be lent money."

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, on July 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was designated as the subject of audit and was ordered to work home; and (b) was not designated as the date of payment of purchase price by exercising the victim’s right to claim purchase of stocks until he received money under the name of purchase price; and (c) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the borrowed money by selling it within one month after purchasing it from the injured party, even if he borrowed money under the name of purchase price for the exercise of Stockholm options.

On August 6, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received a remittance of KRW 40 million from the victim to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the Defendant, under the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (including details of transactions of passbooks, Saemaul Bank of Korea), investigation reports (report on requests for fact-finding), investigation reports (report on requests for fact-finding), and reports on criminal investigation (report on the victims E-

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the grounds of sentencing sentencing in the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the choice of punishment, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing of imprisonment: The basic area (six months to one year and six months) (any person who is subject to special sentencing) of the sentence is larger than that of the sentence, and there is no recovery of damage, and thus, the sentence is inevitable. However, the defendant is led to confession and reflect.