On January 20, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment due to occupational embezzlement, etc., and the sentence became final and conclusive on February 6, 2017.

On January 14, 2016, around Busan District Court 204, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking construction cost claim case No. 86673 against D, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as D, at the court of Busan District Court 204.

In the instant case, U.S., U.S., U.S., was forced to accept the inspection site around October 2009, Defendant D delegated all the powers pertaining to E’s new construction works to the Defendant, who had a construction business entity with interest on E, and paid approximately KRW 1.2 billion in total compensation and loans to the Defendant as construction cost.

In addition, on October 8, 2010, upon D’s delegation, the Defendant concluded a contract for construction work with F and E with a general constructor, and completed the construction work. As above, the Defendant did not use more than KRW 600 million out of KRW 1.2 billion of the construction cost received from D as construction cost, and embezzled the construction work for personal purposes, etc. In the meantime, Plaintiff C, a pro-friendly type of the Defendant, filed a lawsuit claiming construction payment against D in the instant case, stating that “this payment is not equivalent to KRW 66 million of the construction cost,” and that “The Plaintiff C, a pro-friendly type of the Defendant, filed a lawsuit seeking construction cost,” which was based on the main basis therefor, submitted the “standard contract for construction work under Defendant D and C’s name.” < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22426, Oct. 8, 2010>

In that sense, around November 2013, the term “standard contract for private construction works” was presented by C along with the content that the account payable for the construction work may be paid KRW 120 million to D. After that, D had filed a complaint with C around January 2014 due to forgery of a private document, etc. on the ground that the said standard contract was “a forged contract” and the Defendant filed a complaint with the same crime around July 2014, on the ground that the said standard contract was submitted only a copy of the original contract and the appraisal was impossible.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the above date and time.