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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person running Co., Ltd. E in Incheon D, and the Defendant was aware of the relationship between F and his business partner.

At the time of November 2009, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that there is a shortage of investment funds in connection with the investment in the house for the electric source; (b) that the complainant borrowed the money as security by taking out the denying house of the complainant in connection with his business; and (c) that the complainant did not leave the check to the bank again; and (d) that the complainant was aware of the fact that he did not leave the check to the bank.

On November 6, 2009, the Defendant made a statement to the complainant that “I am in custody of widths during the Chinese business trip” at any time at any time at the time when I am in China.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to return the above checks to the complainants later, even if he kept the above checks from the complainants who attempted to invest the victim's houses in the future.

The Defendant received from the complainant three copies of the check of KRW 20 million, namely, the check of KRW 20 million, and KRW 10 million.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the complainant.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel denies that the defendant merely received the investment money from the complainant and that there is no fact of deceiving the complainant by deceiving him.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records of this case, the defendant was found to have received four copies of the check from the complainants in total amount of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “the check of this case”). However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, was proved to the extent that it was proven to be beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant deceivings the complainant as stated in the facts charged, and acquired the check of this case.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) A complainant shall not be more than 1:06 on November 6, 2009.