The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 9, 2009, the Defendant appears to refer to “E Co., Ltd.” to the victim D at the Defendant’s office located in the Gu, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

This is proceeding with the East-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Development Project.

E may receive 33,000 square meters of the land of the project, and will be KRW 100,000 per square year after completion of the development.

The term “Irhn Investment to sell 70,000 won per square year” was called as “Irhn.”

However, the facts are that the defendant has no experience in operating real estate development business, and it is impossible to carry out the above development project with the defendant's funds because there is no particular property, and there was no way to raise funds for the project cost of KRW 200 billion estimated by the defendant, and there was no way to obtain any permission or approval for the development of Filwon of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City from Busan Metropolitan City Office, etc., and the above E was closed on December 31, 2008, and even if the defendant or the above E did not have the right to hold 33,000 square meters in accordance with the above development project, there was no intention or ability to pay profits from the agreement for the implementation of the above development project for the above zone.

Nevertheless, the defendant - who makes a false statement as above, and as such, 40 million won in cash on the same day from the injured person under the same name; the same year

7. Cash of KRW 20 million in light of or around July, the same year.

8.6. On December 14, 198, the Plaintiff received KRW 130 million in total, including KRW 48 million in cash and KRW 22 million in cash, and borrowed KRW 10 million from G around December 14, 2000 in total from G, and had the victim set up a right to collateral security of KRW 10 million in maximum amount of claims against G in the window H located in Chang-si, Changwon-si, the victim owned the right to collateral security of KRW 10 million in total.

2. In the case of the Eastern District development project promoted by the Defendant, the application for authorization was made because the project failed to attract investment and the purchase of land within the project site was impossible.