The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case was that the Defendant owed C with the obligation of KRW 50 million, and since July 2008, the said Company paid only KRW 20 to 30% of the flag cost, and around September 2008, the outstanding amount of the said Company was a total of KRW 285,897,000, and thus, even if it was contracted out by the said Company, it is not possible to pay the construction cost even after being awarded a contract from the said Company. With knowledge of the fact that it was not possible to pay the construction cost, the Defendant had the said Company subcontracted the construction work to the victim E during the construction of new housing in Gangdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the other day, wooden, flooring, and remote areas.

1. On November 1, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around November 1, 2008, the Defendant would receive the cost of construction from C when he/she would receive the payment of the cost of construction from the third floor housing construction site located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F at the site of new construction of the third floor housing in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

However, the victim did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim completes the distribution work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the victim perform a double construction work equivalent to KRW 3.9 million from November 1, 2008 to November 3, 2008, and did not pay the construction cost and did not acquire the pecuniary benefit equivalent to the same amount.

2. On December 13, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim of the newly constructed housing construction site located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “The Defendant will receive the cost of construction from C to pay the cost of construction upon the request of the victim of the double construction work during the contracted construction work,” around December 13, 2008.

However, the victim did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim completes the distribution work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the victim do a double construction work equivalent to KRW 4,347,00 on the same day and did not pay the construction cost, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

This is the defendant.