Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly announced.

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) (1) received a total of KRW 260 million from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), but this is merely paid an amount equivalent to the construction cost, which was unrepaid to the construction business operator, and returned it again after concluding a contract by the method of sofing the contract amount, and it does not have acquired unjust profits as a consideration for duties. Thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established.

2) Defendant A did not receive an illegal solicitation from E and did not perform an inappropriate task in the course of carrying out the project.

3) Since Defendant A’s seizure of total amount of KRW 260 million received from Defendant E, the lower court, without sentencing the above KRW 260 million, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A to commit an offense.

B) Defendant A’s receipt of KRW 260 million from E is a contract concluded by a method of softening the contract amount, and it is merely a return of the amount equivalent to the construction cost that has been unrepaid to the construction business operator, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust, on the ground that the receipt of KRW 200,000

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who worked as the head of the building team in charge of D’s main duties ordered by public agencies, etc. in C corporation, and the Defendant A worked as the head of the building team at the same team as the head of the two strikes of the building team. The Defendants conspired to receive money and valuables from E in return for ordering design services to E.

The Defendants, in around 2016, take charge of the duties of selecting a designer to perform design services in relation to the F and “G” in the process of the said company.