On February 11, 2011, the Defendant sold to E the amount of KRW 130 million per household, total of KRW 260 million, and KRW 100,000,000,000 to E the amount of the deposit returned, and KRW 10,000,000,000 of the amount of the deposit returned to E or the amount of the provisional seizure, which is the actual buyer, to E or the parties to the transaction contract, G, and E represent them.

The acquisition of the shares and the deduction of KRW 190,000,000,000 were paid.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold KRW 70 million to E on February 11, 201, and KRW 190 million on February 15, 2011, and KRW 100 million on February 15, 201, and KRW 100 million on a total, KRW 180 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, excluding KRW 100,000,000,000,000 paid to a certified judicial scrivener’s expenses, etc., for the victim on February 18, 2011, the Defendant sold the instant loan to E on a total of KRW 140,00,00 for each household, and received KRW 80,000,00,00 for the actual purchase price.

“A false statement to the effect that “” was sent to the victim KRW 80 million, and thereafter, the remaining KRW 100 million was embezzled by voluntary consumption.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial entry of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor to C and E;

1. A complaint (including data, such as copies of each real estate transaction agreement attached thereto);

1. Copies of the examination record of H as witness;

1. A copy of a record (not more than 70 pages of investigation records);

1. A copy of each judgment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including attached data);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 355(1) of the relevant Criminal Act regarding criminal facts

1. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

A. Although the Defendant sold the instant real estate for the victim, at the time, the Defendant actually received the lease deposit, etc. from the buyer except for the lease deposit.