The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant, around November 16, 201, tried to build a new brokerage hole to G, the representative director of the said company, at the office of the victim FF corporation located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 203, with the intent to engage in the crowdfunding business.

The land owner and the real estate sales contract were entered into with the owner of the land by selecting the wife population H as a site for the Holdings, and the down payment was already paid.

Since the PF loan is expected to be obtained, the PF loan of KRW 500 million is to be selected as the contractor of the construction of the wabing Construction, and the loan of KRW 500 million until February 10, 2012 is to be repaid.

The term "FF loans" is false to the purport that it is, and the above G G is difficult to obtain a PF loan by making F as the contractor because it is not good credit.

On the other hand, the defendant continued to borrow the FF loan by making the F F as the contractor, and thus, he borrowed the money with the belief of himself and made a false statement.

However, the defendant was 6 degrees in credit rating at the time, and was operated in the past.

I Workers were convicted of violating the Labor Standards Act because they failed to pay 20,000 won of wages of the I Workers, and they were found guilty of having committed a violation of the Labor Standards Act. Even if they were unable to file a complaint against the supplier due to lack of financial resources, they did not have the ability to repay the amount of money. The down payment of the site of the Dok Holdings was not paid in full, but was not paid only KRW 7,000 out of the down payment of KRW 80,000,000 among the down payment, and there was a situation in which the design work of the construction of the Dok Holdings was not performed, which was promised, and thus, it was a situation in which the PF was unable to receive a loan

In addition, the defendant was only planned to undertake construction with the PF loan, and there was no application for the PF loan and no definite answer to the financial institution.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving G, the representative director of the victim company as above, and this day is the victim.