The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, stated in C, stated that “The outstanding amount remains at KRW 70 million with credit loans from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation. The Defendant may receive additional loans of KRW 300 million within 30 million with the repayment of the above amount. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was guilty of the charge of this case by misapprehending the fact that “The Defendant, while making a loan of KRW 100 million, would have borrowed KRW 300 million with the repayment of the outstanding amount and then have been repaid at least KRW 90 million until March 20, 207, including KRW 90 million.”

Judgment

On November 12, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 27, 201.

On January 1, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would pay KRW 200 million,000,000,000 to the Defendant, who borrowed the credit loan from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, in excess of the amount of KRW 70,000,000,000 prior to the first day of the first day of the month in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.” The Defendant would be able to receive additional loans of KRW 300,000 within 30,000,000 from the loan of KRW 100,000,000,000 to the Defendant, including KRW 90,000,000,000 from the loan of KRW 30,000,00,000,000 from March 20, 2007.”

However, the facts are as follows: (a) D) in which the defendant had been operated before, on the wind that the defendant could not pay 50 million won of the loan from the Peace Bank, the guarantor's technical credit guarantee was subrogated; and (b) from February 28, 1995, the defendant cannot be issued a letter of credit guarantee by reporting it to the defendant from February 28, 1995; (c) there was no fact that the defendant applied for a guarantee to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund for additional loans; and (d) EE operated at the time did not pay profits properly.