The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. On April 10, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction work with the victim B (C Co., Ltd.) as the contractor for the construction work of lending to D, etc. on a new basis, and on April 18, 2017, the Defendant set up a collateral security of the maximum amount of KRW 420 million with the Defendant as the debtor on the above land and the above ground building (C Co., Ltd.).

On August 25, 2017, the Defendant, at the E Cooperatives located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around August 25, 2017, has to sell the funds to the victims in advance in order to pay the funds to the victims.

Many persons eligible for parcelling-out have difficulty in parcelling-out because the right to collateral security is established.

If the establishment of the right to collateral security is terminated, it will be paid KRW 1330,000,000,000 for the termination and the expiration of the loan to E union.

“A false statement” was made.

However, even if the victim terminates the establishment of the right to collateral security, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay 1330 million won for the loan to E union.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim terminate the establishment of the right to collateral security on the above real estate without delay, obtained pecuniary benefits of KRW 420 million with the maximum amount of the claim amount.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion ① that the defendant will pay to B the term price of KRW 133 million in return for the condition or consideration for the termination of the right to appeal as stated in the facts charged.

There is no false statement.

(2) The defendant has an intent and ability to pay reasonable amount to B.

③ The right to collateral security of a stock company C had already been extinguished and thus its objection was cancelled.

Even if there is no infringement of any property interest of the victim.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On April 10, 2017, the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) operated by B.