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

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On February 1, 2017, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul coffee shop, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C that “The Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Japan E-Seoul E-Seoul E-Seoul E-Seoul E-Japan Promotion Project (hereinafter “instant implementation project”), would make an investment of KRW 5 billion within one week in land contract, to which width will invest KRW 100 million in business practice, and later would give a share in profits.”

However, the Defendant did not have business rights or rights with respect to the instant implementation project, and it was thought that the Defendant had little ability to invest KRW 5 billion in the funds of KRW 5 billion for the project at the time, and that he temporarily paid interest to the bond company, and that it was returned to the bond company at the time, and thus, the acquisition of the instant implementation project was not clear, and that the investment amount was also thought to have been consumed individually.

The defendant is against the victim of the same damage.

2.16. Receiving KRW 100,000 from the F Bank passbook in the name of the defendant in the name of the F Bank;

B. On April 1, 2017, the Defendant, at the above B coffee shop, concluded that “The conditions of the land contract are almost completed and only 5 billion won is deposited in G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant would proceed to the purchase of land, the selection of the contractor, and the grant of the PF loans if the said conditions were deposited in G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and that the Defendant would make an additional investment of KRW 150 million.”

However, the Defendant did not have the right or right to operate the instant implementation project, and at the time, the land contract or 5 billion won procurement was not made, and accordingly, the Defendant was thought not only that the acquisition of the instant implementation project was improper but also that the investment money would have been individually consumed.

The defendant is against the victim of the same damage.

4.13.As a means of investment, money was remitted to the FF Bank in the name of the defendant in the name of the FF Bank.

C. The Defendant’s order during April 2017.