The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on July 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (b) from Denman C, the Defendant: (a) demanded the insurance policy of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance to provide oil from the same petroleum company; (c) requested that the Seoul Guarantee Insurance demands a guarantor to prepare for the exercise of the right to indemnity; (d) requested the F to refuse to provide the said guarantee; (c) had the F refused to obtain an authorized certificate under the name of F; (d) had the intent to persuade the said guarantee issued; (e) in the name of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon; and (e) around August 2, 2012, the Defendant demanded the employees G of the victimized company through the Internet site of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) to provide the same guarantee insurance to the employees of the victimized company under the name of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., for the performance of the payment for the same petroleum obligation under the name of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”).

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have obtained the F’s consent from the F to guarantee the above liability for reimbursement. In order to work together with F, the Defendant obtained an authorized certificate in the name of F and obtained an authorized certificate in the name of F. However, even if the Defendant was the said certification, it would have caused the victimized company to guarantee the liability to the same petroleum company in the above Ejun Oil station until KRW 35 million on the same day, thereby deceiving C to gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the above amount.

However, each statement in F's investigative agency and court, which is almost the only evidence corresponding to the above facts charged, is against the witness C and H's respective legal statements, the injured company, the Han Bank and the NH Nonghyup's respective orders for submission.