The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 28, 2012, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, as Mapo-gu, to the effect that “In order to have E take criminal punishment, the Defendant embezzled the subsidiary factory of this case in the manner that, although the Defendant trusted the name of E with respect to land and ground factories and offices located in Macheon-gu, Macheon-gu (hereinafter “the subsidiary factory of this case”) without the Defendant’s permission, the Defendant embezzled the subsidiary factory of this case in the manner that, around December 22, 2011, the maximum amount of claims KRW 576 million as collateral against the Defendant’s debt, and around February 17, 2012, the maximum amount of claims KRW 120 million as collateral against the Defendant.”

However, the fact was that E had established the above registration with the permission of the Defendant prior to the registration of the lower court (hereinafter “registration of the lower court’s right”).

In this respect, the defendant raised a false appeal against E.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the instant facts charged.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(a) 1) E with respect to the statement of E, in the investigative agency and this court, has no obligation to the Defendant.

② In order to secure Defendant Company G (hereinafter “H”)’s obligation, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant H building”) with respect to H building 110 (hereinafter “instant H building”) was completed with respect to the obligee G and the maximum amount of claims KRW 700 million. However, the Defendant was unable to repay the said obligation, and the auction procedure on the instant H building was conducted and sold, and the Defendant suffered damages equivalent to the value of the instant H building.

③ The Defendant sought compensation for damages from the sale of the H building, and the Defendant’s side factory of this case.