The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 20, 2013, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that “The Defendant would supply the Defendant with cash amounting to KRW 300 million in the face of two weeks in the face of each of the following: (a) the victim’s (State) EE office operated by the victim D in Asia-si; (b) the F agency may deduct the Plaintiff from normal petroleum; and (c) the F agency would sell the said petroleum in the face of KRW 75% in the face of the Si with non-data.”

However, in fact, the defendant was not a director of the F agency at the time and was not a customer who could be supplied with normal petroleum, so even if he was paid the amount of petroleum by the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to supply the normal petroleum to the victim

Accordingly, the Defendant received total of KRW 300 million from the victim, including KRW 10 million on November 15, 2013, KRW 260 million on November 201, 2013, KRW 300 million on November 23, 2013, and KRW 300 million on November 23, 2013.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the Defendant, D, G, and H, the fact that the Defendant intended to purchase petroleum in an abnormal manner with the help of a third party (hereinafter “I”) through the Defendant and eventually failed to purchase the petroleum. However, even though the Defendant delivered money from D in relation to the above purchase of petroleum to “I”, it does not clearly explain his/her personal information and the reason why he/she was unable to purchase petroleum. In light of these circumstances, there is sufficient room to suspect that the Defendant acquired D money by deception on the ground of the processed person of “I”.

B. Meanwhile, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant asserted that D should have repaid the money borrowed from a third party out of the amount of KRW 300,000,000,000 to the Defendant, considering the circumstances upon D’s request, and the Defendant and G claimed that D was urgently needed for petroleum, and that D was used as the purchase fund. On either side, the Defendant takes into account the circumstances of D.