The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On July 23, 2003, the Defendant established G Co., Ltd. for the purpose of developing stem cell research and treatment medicine with capital of KRW 400 million, and on March 16, 2005, the trade name was changed to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

The defendant holds office as the representative director of H and was listed on the securities exchange;

He participated in the capital increase for a third party of I and became a major shareholder of I, and then intended to list H bypassing it by combining I with H.

Accordingly, I decided to increase the capital for consideration on July 7, 2009, 16,200 won for the issuance price of new shares, and July 21, 2009 on July 21, 2009, allocated 432,100 shares to the defendant on the condition of one-year example for the protection of the defendant (total amount of seven billion won).

On July 16, 2009, the injured party J agreed to deposit KRW 1 billion into the Defendant’s corporate bank account as investment deposit on July 16, 2009 at the Defendant’s request. On August 19, 2009, the injured party J calculated the input cost as KRW 1 billion on the condition that it takes charge of the management affairs of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) (hereinafter “K”) and the Defendant actually owned KRW 125,000 out of the above 432,100 shares allocated to the Defendant.

However, because the number of shares between the defendant and the two major shareholders is not only 7,100 shares, there is a concern that if L contains the family head, it would exceed the shares of the defendant, the above 125,000 shares are temporarily entrusted to the defendant for securing the shares of the largest shareholder.

On July 16, 2009, the Defendant kept shares 125,000 shares of K in trust owned by the victim under the name of the Defendant in a closed place. On October 15, 2014, the Defendant denied the trust of the above shares 125,00 shares to the Seoul Central District Court on October 15, 2014, and filed a lawsuit seeking the return of shares on the ground of the expiration of the period under the loan agreement concluded with the victim for the purpose of securing the above nominal trust.