On April 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, “If the Defendant withdraws the next honorary money in the name of D bound prior to the deposit real name system in cash upon request from the high-ranking position of the government, the Defendant is entitled to receive the fee in cash. On the other hand, at the present time, the Defendant made a false statement to the company in which the party is operating, the amount of 7-8 billion won to be invested.”

However, there was no intention or ability of the victim to make investments in the company in operation because of the lack of the borrowed name deposit in the name of D.

On April 10, 2008, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and received cash KRW 8,000,000 from the victim; (b) and (c) received six times from the above date and time to May 21, 2008, total sum of KRW 28,500,000 from the above date and time to May 21, 2008, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of witness E in the fourth trial records and the fifth trial records;

1. Each statement of C, E, and F in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A copy of each statement of performance;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transactions of passbooks;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The Defendant asserts that, among concurrent offenders, the Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was merely a talk about the borrowed name account from F, and seven million won was received from the victim and delivered it to F.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant initially found D's borrowed account, and found another person's borrowed account which is easily found later, and made a false statement that 700 million won can be invested in the victim by commercializing it, and then demanded money as a security expense, and F demanded money from the perspective of the quality investigation with the defendant.