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

1. The Defendant, along with the victim B, entered into a joint agreement with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Central District Court to newly build a trading hole on the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and provided the building of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a security to the victim’s ownership, and the Plaintiff’s building owned E was sold at the latest, and the sum of dividends to four persons with provisional attachment rights, including F, KRW 1 billion was deposited at the Seoul Central District Court around January 14, 2016.

Those who have the above provisional seizure rights have been held by the defendant against the victim in relation to the above business.

As the assignee of the “claim,” the Plaintiff did not recognize his/her obligation and the four transferee of the claim filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of acquisition by transfer against each victim, and is still pending in the trial of the first instance court, the court became unable to pay the dividend until the lawsuit claiming the amount of acquisition by transfer becomes final and conclusive, and thus deposited the dividend.

Therefore, in order for the above provisional seizure right holder to actually receive the above deposited dividends, the situation was that the above provisional seizure right holder should first win the lawsuit claiming the acquisition amount, and it should be waited until the judgment of winning the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim and preparing a fair deed, had the above persons with the right to provisional seizure receive the deposit promptly, and had them use the amount equivalent to the amount.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would bring KRW 200 million out to the victim, as the victim directly borrowed money from the persons who have the right to provisional seizure, would receive KRW 1 billion on the basis of the fair deed, if the Defendant had notarized the instrument of borrowing money as if he/she borrowed money directly from the persons who have the right to provisional seizure.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant promptly receives the deposit by means of the notarial act with the victim's cooperation, he thought that he would use it as an urgent personal debt repayment, etc., and 200 million won among them.