The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant changed the trade name of “G” and “H”, etc. since the business operator registered in the name of Defendant’s wife F around June 16, 2010 with “E” on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground 1, and operates it up to the present day.

On May 2010, the Defendant: (a) came to know of the fact that a special loan for amusement establishments (only hereinafter referred to as a “special loan for entertainment establishments”) is made in the first mutual savings bank of the victim, the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, taking into account the documents of pre-paid “mast” and the pre-paid loan granted to the owners of entertainment establishments in Gangnam-gu, to employees of entertainment establishments, such as a prompt license for entertainment; (b) and (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the loan is made easily by going through J, the Defendant prepared and submitted a false pre-paid document, and attempted to use the false pre-paid document for the opening and operation of entertainment tavern business.

In fact, the Defendant did not pay the pre-paid payment to employees, such as K, L, M, N,O, P, Q at the time of the application for the loan, and there was no actual payment of the pre-paid payment, or the Defendant’s pre-paid payment was made without paying the pre-paid payment to the employees on the condition that the employees take over the obligations of the KRW 0,000 or KRW 00 million incurred while working in the previous business establishment. Therefore, there was a claim for pre-paid payment

Even if it is difficult to enforce the claim against the former entertainment business entity while bearing a considerable amount of debt.

In addition, the Defendant, without explaining the circumstances necessary for documents for the use of marina loan for the main place of business to employees, made the employees, who may know of the circumstances, sign the Malking loan in the form of collateral guarantee, etc. in order to make the employees sign the Malking loan. In addition, the Defendant prepared the documents as if there is a reasonable prepaid bond that has a considerable possibility of enforcement against the employees.

In addition, the Defendant is “E”.