Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants are the same as the elementary school.

On July 13, 2012, the Defendants stated to the effect that, at the Dong-gu Daejeon Daejeon-dong Daejeon-gu Daejeon-dong University of 171, the victim E, “The victim E, upon receipt of a payment guarantee under the name of a construction company F director at the Nonghyup Bank, is at a discount in cash, the victim E shall be paid KRW 3 billion, which shall be paid in addition to KRW 50 million, which shall be paid in addition to the amount of KRW 20 million, which shall be paid in the form of a payment guarantee fee, to the head of the Nam-dong branch office Nongng-dong branch office, the NH Bank Green-dong branch office.” On the same day, Defendant B called the victim from the victim who returned from Daejeon-gu to Daejeon, and called to the head of the branch office “if there is a shortage of money to be paid, an additional amount of KRW 5 million, which shall be added to the amount of KRW 5 million.”

However, in fact, the NongHyup branch did not itself issue a letter of payment guarantee, and the Defendants thought that they would use the money received from the injured party for personal purposes, so they did not intend to use it as a payment guarantee fee.

As above, the Defendants received the victim’s false statement from the victim, and received KRW 20 million from the victim to the account in the name of G designated by Defendant A on the same day, and subsequently, received KRW 2 million from the H’s account designated by Defendant A to transfer KRW 20 million. On July 16, 2012, the Defendants received KRW 3 million from the above H’s account and acquired KRW 25 million in total from the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, to the extent that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 11 November 11, 2010).