Nevertheless, the Defendant received a contract for construction of accommodation facilities from December 27, 2014 to April 8, 2015, and did not assign a construction engineer at the construction site while performing construction works for accommodation facilities in the R at the time of Jindo-si.

2. The summary of the prosecutor’s indictment and the prosecutor’s indictment of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant, as a constructor who actually runs the E Co., Ltd., the Defendant did not assign construction technicians to the construction site of the RL establishment construction site at the time from December 27, 2014 to April 8, 2015.

The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the actual operator of E Co., Ltd. is not a construction technician at the construction site, but the Defendant himself was actually placed as a construction technician in the capacity of a middle class engineer. However, at the time when the public official in charge of Jinju viewing was at the construction site for the investigation, the Defendant was unsatisfy at the construction site (i.e., leaving the construction site). 3.

A. In this court, the snow prosecutor and the Defendant: (a) in this court, whether the Defendant, a real operator of E Co., Ltd., did not assign construction technicians to the construction site; (b) or not the Defendant was placed at the construction site; (c) but, at the time of the public official in charge’s control, the Defendant was merely sicking the construction site (the Defendant’s assertion).

In order to verify the factual relations related to the above official portions, this court conducted the examination of the witness for S and T, respectively, and made a statement to the effect that these are somewhat contrary.

In this paper, even if the facts are alleged by the prosecutor.