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

1. Around July 2011, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office 203, made a false statement to the victim D, stating, “A forest located in Chungcheongnam-gun E, the Republic of Korea owns a forest located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and would be jointly developed. Once the construction is carried out, the Defendant would pay the construction cost by calculating 4,500 won per square meter later.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the victim even if the victim did so.

The Defendant had the victim perform construction works from July 22, 201 to August 21, 201, and had the victim obtain pecuniary benefits of KRW 11,757,000 equivalent to the price.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant’s assertion consistently asserts that: (a) the investigative agency entered into a contract with the F and G E (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) around that time, there was no fact that the Defendant would have ordered the victim D to pay the construction cost by doing construction work.

B. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case lies in a statement made by D in an investigative agency and this court and a telephone statement made by F to an investigative agency.

According to this, D’s statement is that “A defendant made a false statement that he/she would make a payment by proposing blasting, etc. to D on July 201, 201, and D made a process related to blasting, such as test blasting, on the land of this case.”

In addition, F’s telephone statement is that “D required the Defendant to pay for blasting work, and the Defendant’s speech that he would sell a stone,” and “F’s telephone statement was made by hearing and blasting the Defendant’s speech that D would sell a stone.”

See, see, e.g., 209 investigation records. However, according to the records, the following circumstances are recognized.

① Around July 2011, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to grant D construction cost as above.