The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant retired from office as a person in charge of Lashion C from April 10, 2009 to June 20, 2010; and (b) he/she directly prepared for the original revenue business; (c) D; (d) around September 24, 2010, F, the branch of which invested KRW 450 million in the Defendant’s original revenue business; (d) the Defendant had F, the branch of which invested KRW 450 million in the Defendant’s original revenue business, but did not refund the investment money; and (e) the Defendant was unable to repay the investment money, the sum of debts owed to the corporate security guards during January 201.

The Defendant, as the Defendant continued to work in ELD and the Defendant, conspiredd to lend money to others for compensating for D and E losses.

The Defendant, around January 20, 201, signed and sealed on the column of the joint and several obligors with a documentary evidence of 750,000,000 won loan from the Defendant’s home located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, on the loan amount of 750,000,000 won. D and E, on January 20, 2011, at the J-Law Office where the complainants work for the 14th floor of H building in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, invested funds to the complainants for the primary transaction in Korea among the Defendant’s working in ELD and recover the investment funds until January 30, 201.

In this regard, it is necessary to lend the required funds up to January 22, 201, so that it shall be repaid immediately when it is recovered from the face-to-face investment.

“Falsely speaking,” and the Defendant has been working in the Department of Latd K after obtaining confirmation telephone from the complainants.

Money may be repaid ten days after payment.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not work in El branch, and the Defendant did not properly proceed with the original trading business that the Defendant promoted, and the Defendant was traveling abroad around November 2010, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount even if she borrowed money from the complainant because D and E was aware of the repayment of the obligation to the bond company with the borrowed money.

Nevertheless, the defendant is under the name of D in the name of the victim with the same day borrowed.