Defendants are innocent.

1. Around February 16, 2015, Defendant C received from E a bill of promissory note 140 million won in face value issued by F Co., Ltd. from E and delivered it to Defendant D. Defendant D through Defendant A. The said bill was delivered to Defendant B. Although the bill was a so-called financing bill that is not a equitable bill for the settlement of the price according to commercial transactions and it was unlikely that the settlement would be made normally on the settlement date, the Defendants concealed such fact and conspired to use the bill by discount as if the said bill was a equitable bill.

Defendant

B. On February 17, 2015, Defendant A presented the said promissory note to the victim at the J agency office operated by the victim I at Jeong-Eup, Jung-si, the following public offering: (a) the Defendant presented the said promissory note to the effect that “this bill would cause a equitable discount without any danger of insolvency.”

However, the above promissory note was a financing bill with little possibility of paying face value on the settlement date.

As above, the Defendants were issued KRW 64,70,00 from the victim’s bank account (L) in the name of K, Defendant A’s child on the same day as discount money, and received KRW 64,70,000 from the victim to April 27, 2015 in the same manner as shown in the separate list of crimes (No. 2 of the crime sight table No. 2) in the same manner between around that time and around April 27, 2015 (a total of KRW 322,16,00 from the victim’s co-principal except Defendant C).

2. Considering the following circumstances, each of the bills and checks, solely on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, cannot be readily concluded that there is no possibility that each of the bills and checks would be settled normally. The Defendants’ payment of each of the bills and checks, as indicated in the separate crime list, shall be made normally.