The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 23, 2011, the Defendant sent a written subcontract to the victim E, a representative director of the company D, at his/her own office in Gwangju-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Office, stating that “The construction of the outer middle school will end upon the completion of the construction work, from among the construction of the outer middle school extension works for which the C company received orders from the C company, the Defendant would make the payment as the end of the construction work.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any particular asset, and even if he did not receive construction payment from the F Middle School, such as bills issued in connection with the existing construction work, the amount of KRW 500 million, it was thought that it would have been used for bills that would have been scheduled to arrive at the time, and even if he had the victim paid the construction work, the Defendant

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to go against it, from that time to that time.

4.5. Until May 1, 200, FF Middle Schools had them obtain monetary benefits equivalent to the cost of construction.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are based on the premise that the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 500 million at the time of February 23, 2011, and that the Defendant had no economic ability to pay the subcontract price to the victim in addition to the construction cost received from the F Middle School.

The only evidence that seems consistent with the above premise is the suspect interrogation protocol for the defendant.

On the other hand, on March 10, 201, about two weeks after the date of entering into a subcontract contract with E, the Defendant had subcontracted some of the above FJG construction to G with the price of KRW 31.9 million. On the other hand, G filed a complaint with the Defendant for fraud and has been investigated.

(hereinafter “instant case”). The issues of the instant case are substantially identical to the instant case, but the investigation prosecutor of the instant case on May 24, 2012 following the prosecution of the instant case.