The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, through the introduction of E, paid a brokerage commission of KRW 50 million when purchasing real estate, which is a real estate broker. The Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from E due to the lack of the balance of real estate purchase and incurred a debt equivalent to KRW 70 million in total, thereby setting up a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 75 million on the real estate located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F real estate (hereinafter “F real estate”), which is the Defendant’s wife, for E, to use the said real estate as a collateral. However, the Defendant was able to obtain cancellation of the registration of collateral security by deceiving the victim for the purpose of using the said new real estate as collateral.

Around July 6, 2009, the Defendant, at the real estate brokerage office operated by E in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, made a false statement to the effect that “F real estate is replaced by having obtained a bank loan as collateral” with E. The Defendant created a collateral security right in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G apartment 101 Dong 701 (hereinafter “G apartment”) which is owned within the jurisdiction of the State by terminating the collateral security right of KRW 75 million with the maximum debt amount of the party who was established on the said real estate, and would create a collateral security right to F real estate again after replacing the loan. In addition, G apartment owned within the Republic of Korea is set a priority security right, but it is sufficiently worth collateral because it is not residing by the lessee.”

However, in G apartment, the tenant has continuously resided in G apartment with the right to preferential reimbursement of KRW 550 million, and while G apartment is already established with the priority of maximum debt amount of KRW 1.21 billion in total, the market price of G apartment is merely equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion and there was no collateral value, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to re-establish the F Real Estate again.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving E as above, had the victim involved in F real estate of the same day from E, shall be the maximum debt amount under the victim’s name established by the Seoul Central District Court No. 16187, Apr. 16, 2008.