Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. Defendant A is the representative of the E Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is the representative of the F Co., Ltd., and the Defendants conspired to obtain B2B purchase fund loans on June 1, 2009, under the credit guarantee agreement with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund that was victimized on June 1, 2009, by issuing a deposit of KRW 200 million and the electronic commerce credit guarantee certificate on May 31, 2010, which was issued on May 31, 2010.

On June 26, 2009, the Defendants submitted an electronic commerce contract and tax invoice, etc. to a person in charge of the lending of the said bank who is unable to know his/her name, as if he/she purchased 200 million won or more from F, as the credit guarantee certificate and tax invoice issued by the said person in charge of the lending of the said bank was prepared by the said person as if he/she purchased 200 million won or more from F, and acquired it by receiving KRW 200 million from the said bank as a loan for B2B purchase funds on the same day, and on March 8, 2010, the said E lost the benefit due to the failure to pay for the said debt by subrogation.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument is based on the premise that there was no actual transaction of goods equivalent to KRW 200,000,000, which constitutes the instant B2B lending among the companies operated by the defendants. Thus, since the defendants traded goods equivalent to KRW 200,000,000 at the time of applying for the instant B2B lending, it does not constitute a crime of fraud since the defendants traded goods equivalent

The argument is asserted.

B. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and as such, E is equivalent to KRW 200 million from F among the facts charged in the instant case.