The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the defendant, who has operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and D is a person who has operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. for the purpose of advertising agency business, etc., and F is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4.

On October 2013, the defendant, in the office of H H, etc., "F carries out the I Project, which is a pledge of the President in the Dispute Resolution E.

The project will begin with J, the National Police Agency, the incorporated association K, etc., under the supervision of female family members, and will begin with an order for the production and installation of counseling assistant from March 2014.

The ATM is expected to be established in the counseling assistant, M was decided to participate, N was decided to receive investment of 15 billion won from N, etc., and the O Group has already deposited 3 billion won investment.

The principal and interest of 10% per annum shall be repaid immediately after the advance payment is made on March 2014, and the production and installation of counseling assistant will be ordered to the victim.

The term "a false statement" was made, and a copy of the 3 billion won check was presented if it was received from the O group in the HH office on November 4, 2013.

However, it was impossible to obtain permission for large-scale road occupation and use from a large number of local governments for I, there was no agreement to establish M and ATM, and the receipt of an investment letter from Nrr, etc., but the validity was lost due to the failure to meet the preferred conditions at that time and the expiration of the effective period, and there was no fact that OO group deposited investment funds. Therefore, the above project could not be carried out properly.

Furthermore, the Defendant did not have confirmed whether the aforementioned progress plan was merely from D and could actually be carried out as such. Moreover, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the injured party under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan until March 31, 2014 if the business was not carried out properly.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.