1. The Defendants’ co-principals did not have the intent or ability to provide a construction subcontract even if they received money in return for a construction subcontract. Defendant B intended to give a subcontract in the name of H(State) and I(State), a construction company, and introduced Defendant A to receive a subcontract, and Defendant A conspired to receive money from the victim, knowing that Defendant B did not have the ability to provide a construction subcontract.

Defendant

B around July 20, 2012, Defendant A received money from a new office and an officetel as a security deposit to a person who is awarded a subcontract for construction work because he received more than KRW 100 billion construction from the J in Gyeongcheon-do and Kimchi factory construction in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do. Defendant A, around July 23, 2012, ordered Defendant A to receive a subcontract for construction work. Defendant A, at the I’s office located in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, J, and to receive a subcontract for construction work of Kimchi factory located in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, and to receive a subcontract for construction work of Kimchi factory construction in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do. In order to pay an advance payment of KRW 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000.

However, the facts indicate that Defendant B was the representative of Defendant B and the State are merely a company with documents that have almost little records of construction work, and that Defendant B did not have the intent or ability to give a subcontract for the said construction because it did not have the ability to purchase land for the said construction work or obtain a loan from a financial institution. Even if Defendant B knew of the circumstances of Defendant B, Defendant A did not have the intent or ability to give a subcontract for the said construction to the victim even if he received money from the victim

The Defendants conspired with each other.