The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case seems to be erroneous in the indictment “2011” as stated in the indictment of 2010. On November 11, 198, the summary of the instant indictment is to lend 4 million won to the above C representative director E by telephone when it was provided as security the D E automobiles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to lend D E/coos cars owned by the victim C as collateral.

‘Falsely speaking, it would be 15 million won or more at the market price, and it would be the victim's acquisition of the Ecuaps car in an amount equal to the market price, and shall be by fraud;

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, there was a money to be repaid by F (the maximum of KRW 13 million). However, F borrowed money from the Defendant as security instead of having to pay the money that F would have taken.

At the time, F was operating the instant vehicle and being allowed by the borrower.

Accordingly, the Defendant borrowed the instant vehicle as collateral through G and used it.

Therefore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as security, the instant vehicle would be lent KRW 4 million to E and would not induce E.

3. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case is the statements in investigation agencies and courts of E, and in investigation agencies of F, the actual victims of the instant case.

However, even according to E’s statement in the court (see the witness E’s statement in the 16th trial record), when intending to borrow additional KRW 4 million, it would give money to the instant vehicle as security (E stated that F was involved between the witness and the Defendant when borrowing additional KRW 4 million). In addition, due to the obligation relationship between the Defendant and F, the Defendant is the instant vehicle.