On November 2, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, through D’s agent, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the victim E, “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00

However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed KRW 55 million from G on October 12, 2015, and offered it as security for transfer to G, so even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to offer the said vessel as security.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 27 million from the victim to the I Association account in the name of the Defendant’s wife H as a loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of witness E in the third protocol of trial;

1. Second police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Copies of the interrogation protocol of suspect under 2016 type No. 4565 each case;

1. Copy of a separate statement in No. 2016-type 4565;

1. As to the notarial deed, a certificate of borrowing, a ruling of recommending reconciliation, a statement of deposit transaction, and the defendant's defense counsel's assertion, the defendant and the defense counsel did not know that D can borrow money from the defendant's fishing vessel documents, and they did not know that D borrowed money from the defendant's fishing vessel as security, and they did not deceiving E.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted as evidence, the defendant knew that he provided a fishing vessel to E as a security for transfer before the preparation of a notarial deed for transfer by means of transfer and borrowed money, and it is sufficiently recognized that he deceiving E by making D prepare a notarial deed as if it is possible to provide a fishing vessel as security for transfer and borrowing money.

(1) E shall appear in court from the time of complaint.