If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Defendant,

1. On May 13, 2008, at the office of the second floor victim D of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, the facts, despite the victim’s intent or ability to repay money, are false to the effect that it becomes aware of the transaction with the victim, and that “if it is not possible to pay money due to a shortage of house deposit, it shall be repaid 20 million won after 20 days if it is short of 3 million won, it shall be repaid 20,000 won.” The defendant shall receive money from the victim who believed to be true to receive 3 million won from the No. E’s account (Account Number F).

2. Around October 7, 2008, at the same place as the preceding paragraph, a false statement was made to the effect that “the market price of KRW 20 million was kept as security to G residing in Incheon and borrowed KRW 4.5 million on the last day of payment, and the present was the last day of payment. If the present price was exceeded, 20 million was deducted from the fake itself. If 4.5 million won was extended, 7.5 million won was first lent, including 3 million won, and 3.5 million won was to be repaid at the same time.” As such, a false statement was received from the victim’s bank account (H) in the name of G to the account number of the National Bank (the account number) in which the victim believed to be true.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. The defense counsel and the defendant asserted that the defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in the crime, although there is a fact that he/she borrowed money from the victim as stated in the crime, he/she did not have a criminal intent to obtain money because he/she did not have a principal amounting to KRW 45 million as well as sufficient capability to complete payment.

However, according to the above evidence and the certificate of deposit (Evidence No. 1, No. 37) and the certificate of cash custody, the defendant borrowed money from the victim on or around 2006, prior to the crime of this case, and in the event that the defendant is unable to repay the above money by March 8, 2007, the defendant is entrusted with the right of disposition as to the above chief executive officer.