The Defendant has publicly notified the summary of the judgment of innocence of this case.

1. The Defendant, in the facts charged, operated the “C” for the purpose of human subjects business in Vietnam.

On April 8, 2008, the Defendant, at the “C” office located in the Vietnamese City around April 8, 2008, ordered the victim D to be entitled to receive the right of interior works of 100 households, E, a high-quality loan executed and executed by F, in the Vietnamese site. Since internal branch is related to the president of G, the Defendant would be entitled to receive the right of interior works for 30 households among them.

When acquiring the position of 50% of C and the position of the representative director in the amount of 250 million won, the high-class 30 households' interior business can pay a lot of profits.

“A false statement” was made.

However, C had no business performance since its establishment in 2007, and there was no fact that G and C had been able to obtain E’s right to execute the interior of high-quality Bara in the area of Vietnam and F. Therefore, even if the Defendant received advance payment from the injured party for 50% of C’s shares and for the direct takeover of the representative director, he did not have the intent or ability to transfer the right to execute the interior of high-quality Bara as agreed by the injured party.

On April 10, 2008, the Defendant, after deceiving the victim, received 50% of the shares of C around April 10, 2008 from the victim, and acquired 31 million won under the pretext of advance payment for the direct takeover of the representative director.

2. The key issue of the instant case is that the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, was running “C” for the purpose of human life business in Vietnam, and that the Defendant offered to the victim D (hereinafter the complainant) at the office of “C” in the city of Vietnam (hereinafter the complainant) around April 8, 2008 that 50% of the shares of “C” and the office of representative director in the office of “C” in the city of Vietnam (hereinafter the complainant) should be transferred to KRW 250 million, and that the Defendant received KRW 50% of the shares of “C” and KRW 31 million from the complainant as advance payment for the position of representative director.

However, the defendant's deceptions stated in the facts charged are "E is enforced at the local level of Vietnam and F.