사기방조
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., 1202.
The defendant's Dong-si and D Co., Ltd., the actual manager of the Lunae-si and D Co., Ltd., together with F, the Luna-si and D Co., Ltd., carried out the Luna-si and D Co., Ltd., through the Luna-si and D Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd., on March 2, 201, entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd., which entered into the Luna-si and D Co., Ltd., with D Co., Ltd., to sell the recipient, and deliver the recipient. In relation to the above business, D Co., Ltd., the defendant took charge of the overall practice, such as the Luna-si and Luna-
E around April 201, at the Busan Jung-gu I hotel coffee, etc., the victim H obtained through G, and around June 2, 201, the DDA in which the three years-years-olds-olds-in company enter into a contract for supply of the principal and the respondent by entering into an investment contract with the 5:5 shares. It is the same that the party subject to the DDR's business has an investment in the same manner as that of the 30-in-house. In this case, it has recommended several investments to the effect that the DIC would make an investment, and around May 3, 2011, it has made the said G through the said G to give priority to transferring the advance of investment as the settlement funds are urgently required, and around June 2, 2011, the 1% monthly revenue for the principal of investment shall be paid, and the 20% agreement of the investment principal and interest (hereinafter referred to as the "investment agreement") shall be drawn up and paid if one year has not elapsed from the date of investment.
However, in fact, around April 20, 201, in accordance with the direction of DJ, the F resigned from the representative director of DD in accordance with F's order, and withdraws from E's partnership, and around that time, the possibility of the progress of D's supply business was unsatisfed due to the occurrence of a lot group and civil dispute with F in relation to D's social financing business. Furthermore, from March 201, the reason is that D's K's payment of wages to D's and K's subsidiaries could not be made.