The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would create a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 200 million for a claim amounting to the maximum amount of KRW 200 million in the name of the Party, upon cancellation of a provisional seizure of real estate set up in the name of the Party F and nine parcels, and above ground Nos. 1 and 1 and 1 and 2 of the same subparagraph (hereinafter “instant real estate”).” to the victim E, “The Defendant would create a right to collateral security equivalent to the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 200 million in the name of the Party.”

However, when the provisional seizure in the name of the victim was obstructed in the course of trying to recover the ownership of the instant real estate (land portion) that was already owned by the Defendant, the Defendant had no intention or ability to set up a collateral security equivalent to the claim amount of provisional seizure or to compensate the damage therefrom.

Nevertheless, on June 13, 2013, the defendant deceiving the victim as above, and caused the victim to cancel provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 200 million for the real estate of this case, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant was the victim, or the defendant was ordered to release the provisional seizure without the intent or ability to compensate the damage therefrom.

It is difficult to see it.

In other words, it is proved that the criminal intent of defraudation has been proven.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) If the defendant releases provisional seizure against the victim, he/she would simultaneously create a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 200 million with the transfer or cancellation of registration in G name.