The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) although the Defendant had operated D and received approximately KRW 15 billion revenue; (b) but had paid approximately KRW 10 million from KRW 15,000 to KRW 15,000,000 on the interest of one month, such as bank obligations and bonds, etc.; (c) in collusion with E, who is her husband, even though he did not have the intent or ability to make a normal repayment even if he borrowed money from the victim; and (d) even if he did not have the intent or ability to make a normal payment even if he borrowed money from the victim;

A. From March 29, 2012 to September 26, 2012, in D’s operation of Defendant F located in Yong-gu, Yong-gu, Yong-gu, Seoul, that “A person would pay interest of 2.5% per month if he/she lends money in need of operating funds” to the victim G, and that member received 20 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (H) account in the above E’s name on the same day, and acquired 90 million won in total on four occasions from that date to September 26, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table;

B. From July 23, 2012, a false statement to the effect that “A victim G shall be provided with the time limit of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

2. The defendant's assertion and the judgment of this case did not have deception on the facts charged in this case.

In the event that the accused denies the criminal intent of defraudation or deception, the facts constituting the subjective element of the crime are bound to be proved by the method of proving the indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes the indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent is normal empirical rule.