The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case states that “The Defendant would immediately transfer the corporate acquisition price of KRW 120 million to the name of the corporate logistics corporation at the office of “G” in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, on May 10, 2012, to the victim I at the office of “G,” and that “I would immediately transfer the corporate acquisition price of KRW 120,000,000 to the account of the JJ bank (K) around May 16, 2012 from the victim,” and that there is a KRW 40,000,000 from the damage.

5. 17. M. 20,000,000 won to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of L.C., the same year.

6.5. Each remittance was received at KRW 60 million from the Agricultural Cooperative’s account in the name of the said L.C.

At that time, the defendant did not transfer the corporation by delaying the registration of transfer, such as personal seal certificates, even if he received the amount of acquisition by transfer from the injured person in advance.

Ultimately, the Defendant was transferred the sum of KRW 120 million by deceiving the victim.

2. The instant facts charged are proven without a reasonable doubt in light of the following circumstances shown in the judgment records and pleadings:

It is difficult to see it.

A. The premise of the facts charged is based on the factual basis that “after the Defendant entered into a contract for the purpose of acquiring only the proceeds of acquisition without the intention of transferring a corporation, the Defendant did not issue the Defendant’s personal seal impression certificate among the documents necessary to achieve that purpose.”

B. In other words, the prosecutor also presumed that all the documents necessary for the transfer of the corporation of this case, except the Defendant’s personal seal certificate, were created immediately after the contract of this case from the Defendant to N who arranged the contract of this case, but the Defendant did not deliver only part of the “personal seal certificate” to achieve the purpose of defraudation.

(c)

Ultimately, in the instant case, there is only a circumstance that could give a reasonable doubt as to the premise that “the personal seal impression certificate has not been issued under the intent of defraudation” as mentioned in the facts charged, i.e., the said premise.