The victim was issued a test report and KC certificate in the name of the victim after manufacturing and delivering luminous transmission devices and processing devices using the above parts.

After that, the victim submitted the above test report and the KC certificate when applying for the approval of the supply of the materials for the e-mail transmission equipment on the south high-speed rail tracks, and the above test report and KC certificate are related to the victim's company facilities, and the victim's application for the approval of the supply of materials was not illegal or inconsistent and did not intend to exclude the defendant's application for the approval of the supply of materials, despite that the defendant did not have the intent to exclude the defendant's application for the approval of the supply of the materials at the fourth floor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office around April 25, 2013, the defendant applied for the approval of the supply of the main materials by the victim who supplied the facilities from the defendant at the time of the F Corporation was in violation of the provisions of the Korea Rail Network Authority, but it is difficult to think that there is an intention to grant the benefits to the specific company.

In this case, H company is demanding a statement of transaction between the ordering office and the prime contractor, that is, a certificate of supply performance, so it is well known that the company operated by the defendant supplied the facilities to the victim, and the victim's refusal to issue a certificate of supply performance is not suspected of intentionally excluding the defendant company.

The test report and the KC Certification certificate submitted by the victim shall be F at the time of performing the F.