On June 13, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “E-securities” office at the “E-securities office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that the Defendant would pay KRW 754 million to the Defendant, who would present the Defendant’s credit to receive a letter of revocation of the complaint from F who filed a false charge of fraud, and that the written agreement shall be returned to the Party,” and that “The written agreement shall be returned to the Party.”

However, the defendant did not intend to return the above agreement to the victim.

On June 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) caused the victim to affix his/her signature and seal to a copy of the mutual incompact book in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, on or around June 14, 2010; and (c) received the delivery.

Judgment

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant consistently from the investigative agency to the instant court, and that he/she received a written agreement from the victim on June 9, 2010 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under the pretext of the agreement on the case in which he/she filed a complaint, and that he/she did not make any false statement as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003).

D and G are admitted as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.