In February 2, 2008, the Defendants, at the D Construction Office for Defendant A’s operation in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the victim E, “it is necessary to take over the comprehensive construction. It is necessary to take over the comprehensive construction. When granting a comprehensive construction license, the Defendants, by means of falsehood, called “only 20 days as they can obtain a PF loan from a bank, will be used for a period of 20 days, and the principal, interest, interest, and existing debt will be paid at the same time.” On March 18, 2008, the Defendants were transferred KRW 50 million to the account in the F’s name.

However, in fact, the Defendants were trying to operate a business with a PE loan only in the absence of self-sufficiency at the time, and even if they borrowed the above money from the victims, there was no intention or ability to repay the money, such as not being able to verify at all the financial institutions that actually receive the PE loan prior to the borrowing of the money.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired and received KRW 50 million from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants and F (including the EM statement)

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. A loan certificate, a monetary loan agreement, a housing construction project plan, approval of a housing construction project plan, a project plan, a business entrustment and vicarious service contract, a notice of consent to a public project for State property, a stock transfer or takeover contract, a land use plan, a certificate, a beneficiary certificate, a monthly revenue and expenditure statement, a demand notice, etc., a real estate security trust contract

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code for criminal facts [the scope of recommending punishment] of the basic area (6 to 100 million won) (6 to 1 year and 6 months) of the type 1 of the general fraud (the scope of recommending punishment] [the decision of sentencing] has not yet been fully recovered from the damage. Defendant A has no same record other than the one sentenced to a fine.