The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant’s rebuttald the Defendant, at the time, C, a partner of the instant case, from D.

Although US dollars 20,00 was returned to D, and there was no fact that US$ 20,00 was lent to D, on April 22, 2016, the Busan High Police Station lent US$ 20,000 to it on March 22, 2016.

D. On April 15, 2014, he/she directly lent USD 20,00 to D, and again lent USD 20,000 to D on May 15, 2014. However, D submitted a written complaint stating that “D would be punished for fraud because it had no idea or ability to repay to D from the beginning.” This assertion that D submitted a false complaint for the purpose of having D subject to criminal punishment, and that D submitted it to D, and brought a public prosecution against the Defendant.

In this regard, the defendant and his defense counsel argued that the defendant delivered USD 20,000 on the premise that the defendant was returned from defendant Eul.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was a defendant and his/her partner.

C was delivered to D

The facts charged are proved beyond the reasonable doubt that US$ 20,00 is likely to be returned from D by the defendant.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Evidence conforming to the facts charged in the instant case is limited to the statements made by D and C at this court and investigation stage. With respect to the use, loaning time, and whether D received money from the Defendant, the police statement at the police stage, the prosecutor’s statement at each of the above legal statements, and the entertainment cost, and the contents of the statement made between D and C are inconsistent.