The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director B of a stock company with the purpose of selling liquid materials.

around June 2016, the Defendant suspected of arbitrarily embezzling the Victim C (L, 53 years old), who is a person in charge of business management of B, and did not receive the money as the borrowed money from the injured party and paid it in full.

The defendant, around June 30, 2016, at the B office located on the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shopping mall, grants the victim the article to pay the price to be paid to the victim as the last day E.

A loan of KRW 50 million may be repaid within one week.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, even if the defendant received a loan from the injured party at the time, he did not have the intention to repay it, and did not think that he would not immediately use it as the purchase price of E.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received transfer of KRW 50 million from the victim to the F account under the name of the Defendant; and (c) received a total of KRW 283 million from July 15, 2016 through six times in the same manner as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached Form from the date of the occurrence of the crime from July 15, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim and receiving the property, acquired the property.

2. In order to recognize the facts charged, it is necessary to prove that the Defendant suspected of embezzlement of C’s funds prior to June 30, 2016, as stated at the time of the crime.

According to the witness G's testimony, the point of time when C's embezzlement is doubtful and investigated is getting borrowed or thereafter.

The recording book (Evidence Nos. 13) states that the defendant referred to as "from the end of May", but there is room to interpret it as the meaning that employees B suspected of suspicioning C and started investigation from that time. As such, the defendant is doubtful of C's embezzlement since before June 30, 2016.

shall not be a basis to consider.

This part of the facts charged is consistent with this.