except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who is working for the vice president of D (representative E, actual operator F) corporation, and is the representative director of G corporation at present.

On June 10, 2006, the Defendant: (a) at the office of Gangnam-gu Seoul D Co., Ltd., Ltd., “The I Area Urban Development Project Corporation (hereinafter “I Area Urban Development Project”) was awarded a successful bid for the construction work by the J, Inc., by means of the official work of the Public Procurement Service. Therefore, D, which is jointly operated with F, is expected to receive the above construction work en bloc subcontract from J; (b) there is a regular contract; (c) if K is equivalent to an amount equivalent to 8% of the construction contract amount; and (d) if 300 million won is a separate civil petition treatment cost, D will make a subcontract again to K as it is; and (d) prepares an agreement and a written contract for non-construction, which provides the victim and K with an I Area Urban Development Project as a package subcontract in an amount equivalent to 16 billion won.

However, the Defendant did not make any contribution in receiving the award for the construction for the complex development project of the International Development Project in the District, and did not receive the said construction from J as a lump sum subcontract. In addition, there was no fixed contract from J to receive the said lump sum subcontract. In addition, among the above complex development project, L Co., Ltd. (M) had already entered into a subcontract with five companies, such as the J, etc. contracted for the said complex development project on October 15, 2005, and L had been proceeding with the said sub-construction since then, even if it received the money from the victim on June 10, 2006 (the clerical error in the indictment, May 5, 2005), there was no intention or ability to collectively subcontract construction amounting to 16 billion won among the above complex development project in the K operated by the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is therefore subject to the charge of civil petition treatment on or around July 6, 2006 from the victim.