A, B, and D are punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 8 months, Defendant E, and F.

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness A and C's respective statutory statements;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine);

B. Defendant B, C, and D: Article 357(1) of each Criminal Code (in combination, each of the Defendants B and D’s fines, and Defendant C’s choice of imprisonment)

(c) Defendant E: Article 96 Subparag. 1 and Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Selection of Fines - Taking into account the fact that there are no particular criminal records)

(d) Defendant F Stock Company: Articles 98(2), 96(1), and 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants A, B, D, and E in the custody of a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant C: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant C of a community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B, C, and D: The proviso to Article 357(3) of each Criminal Act: KRW 9,421,600: KRW 4,421,60 [$4,00*1,00*1,05.4 (exchange rate of June 23, 2015)] 5 million: KRW 24,083,200 + 1,105,100 KRW 22,977,80 ($ 1,000 x 1,105.4) : KRW 7,977,800 = 47,800, KRW 15,000; and

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A’s giving of property in breach of trust (1) the Defendant held on January 201, 201 in the office of the KOBB.

As described in the paragraph, in relation to the convenience of the secondary contract, C made such solicitation, and C delivered 5 million won to B, “a request to deliver to B representative”, and C delivered it to B.

② Around July 29, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2012, and as a result, the second construction was delayed, the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff would urge the Plaintiff to continue the construction and terminate the contract when the Plaintiff fails to perform the construction works.

On September 2012, the defendant understood the delay in construction at the LO office of the KOB and made the solicitation that the contract will be maintained.