The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on September 16, 2013, the Defendant: (b) was a person holding 33% of the shares in real estate C 501 in the Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu; and (c) on September 16, 2013, the victim E, who believed and well followed the Defendant of the Pyeongtaek-si, with the trust and good faith, changed the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million for the lease of the house to lease the house to the Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan, Seoan-gu; (b) on the 501st floor, there is a commercial building; and (c) on the 501st floor; and (d) on the part of the house, the deposit will be returned immediately if four wanted to live. It is false that there is a commercial building in the ceiling and that the entire building in C 501 Do is believed.”

However, on October 5, 2012, the Defendant owned only 1/30 of the equity interest of the above 501, and the said 501 set a collateral equivalent to KRW 143 million with respect to the maximum debt amount, which is the mortgagee of Young-gun, on October 5, 2012. The Defendant, who has the right to share of 23/100, established a collateral on the building located in the dong-gu, dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul., another building with the right to share of 23/100, and the provisional attachment was made on several occasions from August 2013, 2013, under the circumstance that the F lessee had the obligation to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 98 million with respect to the F building, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit amount received from the victim to the lessee as repair cost or bank loan if the victim wishes to use it as such.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 25 million in cash or by account transfer in the vicinity of the Agricultural Cooperatives, which is located in the same day from the victim, and acquired it by means of cash or account transfer.

Judgment

The evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case has the statement in the investigative agency and court of victim E and the defendant's property status at the time of receipt of lease deposit, but is known by the record.