The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 11, 2008, the Defendant, at the coffee shop located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, intends to carry out a large-scale project, such as purchasing “F, a staff member of the damage prevention center, purchase of land outside the Seoul Metropolitan Government G and three lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”), which is operated by the victim D, in the coffee shop operated by the victim D, around September 1, 2008.”

B. A false statement was made to the effect that the removal of KRW 20 million is to be ordered to contract to a company with which a person works for the party from November 18, 2008 on the face of the week.

However, the defendant did not purchase the above land, and there was no intention or ability to proceed with the project due to the lack of money in possession.

Around September 12, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving an employee of the victim, received a remittance of KRW 20 million from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victim's staff and received property from the victim.

2. The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (i) the instant land was owned by the Defendant’s party accommodation denial network H and I, or was owned by the Defendant’s sole owner of the instant land; and (ii) the Defendant was delegated by the party accommodation with the authority to sell the instant land and negotiated with the executing company seeking to operate the instant housing construction project on the instant land; (iii) in the process, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim via F with the delegation of the authority to conclude the contract for the removal of the factory building on the instant land from the party accommodation; and (iv) did not conclude that the F directly purchased the instant land and intended to build a waterway, etc. for a large-scale project by purchasing the instant land.

It is argued that F and J also appeared as a witness in this Court, and that the defendant would directly purchase the land in this case to build another canal wells, etc., and there is no other existing factories located in the factory site owned by the small father (or father) of the defendant.