The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 11, 2011, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, by telephone, carried out two houses in D and completed almost after having been completed.

In addition, the construction cost of KRW 100 million is required.

There is a loan of 360 million won in a bank, but it is more than 1 billion won when the two houses are completed and traded after completion of the two houses.

It is intended to complete the house by lending the additional construction cost of KRW 100,000 to the same NA, and as E wishes to guarantee the additional construction, it is intended to set up a collateral on the father's land because E wishes to establish a collateral security right, and to solve it immediately after the completion of the construction after two months.

“A false representation was made.”

However, on October 16, 2009, the Defendant purchased FF land 1,322 square meters from G. However, without its own funds, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 360,000,000 from the Pyeongtaek-gun Forestry Cooperatives, and paid a part of the purchase price and paid the unpaid amount. The housing one unit already decided to repay the unpaid amount to E instead of the existing debt, and the construction business operator decided to take charge of the construction work and settle the construction cost by receiving a loan after completion, but the construction business operator did not have any intent or ability to cancel it from time to time, even if the collateral security was established on the forest land owned by the victim H, the father of the Plaintiff, and the forest land owned by the Plaintiff.

On March 14, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving C as such, had C acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount by having C establish a collateral security right of KRW 120 million with respect to the forest land owned by the victim with the consent of the victim, as the obligor and E, the maximum amount of the claim of the person with the right to collateral security of KRW 120 million.

2. The health room and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize whether the Defendant was deceiving C as stated in the above facts charged.