The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

1. The facts charged in the facts charged: Defendant A’s real estate brokerage business; Defendant B, a person engaged in agriculture; and Defendant B agreed to obtain gains from trading by investing in the land with G; and around September 29, 2009, the 1/4 shares of the land in the name of G when purchasing H and I. The remaining 3/4 shares were registered under the victim’s name in lieu of the victim’s name with the victim’s consent; and the remaining 107,90,000,000 won was established to the original credit cooperative and paid the purchase price corresponding to the Defendants’ shares by borrowing KRW 83,00,000 to the Defendant’s shares.

After that, the Defendants decided to increase the value of the land through the construction of a warehouse and the alteration of the form and quality of the above K's land to be sold, and the construction for 2 Dongs in a warehouse is carried out by Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant B invested the amount of 43 million won in a warehouse, but Defendant B tried to obtain additional loans in the name of the victim as the construction cost falls short of the construction cost.

【Criminal facts against the Defendants” are as follows: (a) the victims were using the land as collateral at the location of the Young-dong Saemaeul Undong Saemaul Bank’s school in order to use the land as collateral and to repay the loan after selling the land thereafter.

Between them, a person with a loan interest is to pay it well without problem and to have the loan repaid without a mold, and to prepare a written confirmation to the same effect as the victim.

However, in fact, even if the Defendants were to obtain a loan from the Young-dong Saemaeul Cooperative, the existing financial resources credit cooperative was repaid and the remainder was to receive a preferential repayment of the Defendants’ money already invested in the construction cost, so there was no intention to continue the construction if the loan is less than expected, and the Defendants and G were to have no intention to continue the construction.