On April 2014, the Defendant had a duty to set the contract price and to report it to the victim company when concluding a contract to change the boundary stone and sidewalk block of the E apartment in Gyeyang-gu, Goyang-gu, which was contracted by the victim company. As such, the Defendant had a duty to set the reasonable contract price in concluding the subcontract.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in violation of his duties, made an agreement with F to unrepare the actual subcontract price and receive a refund from F. Around that time, the Defendant received KRW 1 million from F, and entered into a contract to give a subcontract to F for the replacement of the boundary stone and sidewalk block in G apartment located in the Gu during the period of Ansan-si where the victim company was contracted on August 2014. Around that time, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 1 million in cash by the aforementioned method.

Accordingly, the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 2 million from the victim company, and acquired property profits equivalent to the same amount.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the decision-making entity of each of the instant construction costs, and the circumstances leading up to C having filed a complaint by the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A. Determination of the construction cost of each of the instant subcontracts is C, the representative director of the victim company. In particular, C is recognized as having entered into a subcontract with a certain amount of 57 million won after obtaining a written estimate of construction cost submitted by F through the Defendant with respect to E apartment boundary and sidewalk block replacement work. This is recognized as having reduced the construction cost by 57 million won.