The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around July 4, 2011, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant transferred the forest land in the name of G, “H, building and trees thereon,” etc. in the name of G, which is located in the victim F, to approximately KRW 2.2 billion; (b) the Defendant transferred the shares of the IF Corporation (hereinafter “instant Company”) owned by the Defendant to the victim F without compensation; and (c) determined the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the instant Company to be completed in the name of the victim F.

However, for the convenience of tax procedure, although the defendant transferred all of the shares of the company of this case to the victim F without compensation, it seems that the shareholder J of the company of this case transferred 500 million shares to the victim F at around that time, the shareholder K prepared four copies of the share transfer contract of transfer of 1000 shares to the victim M (victim F) at KRW 1500,000 shares and KRW 500,000 shares of the shareholder L to the victim M (victim F F's wife) at KRW 500,00 shares, G prepared four copies of the share transfer contract of transfer of 100 shares to the victim N (victim F's F's relative) at KRW 5 million.

However, even though the Defendant was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances, at the Suwon District Court located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, on September 1, 201, the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim F to seek KRW 40 million of share price and damages for delay, KRW 5 million of share price, and damages for delay thereof, in the name of J, K, L, and G, and submitted four copies of the share purchase and sale contract as evidence of the above court, and tried to obtain money equivalent to the above claim amount from the victims by deceiving the above court by deceiving the victims, such as a false assertion that four copies of the share purchase and sale contract were submitted as evidence and the actual payment was agreed to pay the share purchase price. However, on or around February 5, 2013, the judgment against the Plaintiff at the appellate court was affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 13, 2013, which became final and conclusive by the final judgment of the appellate court and did not have been attempted.

2. The market fraud shall belong to the court.