Defendant

A with respect to the first and second crimes, KRW 12,00,00,000 as stated in the judgment, and KRW 3,000,000 as stated in the judgment, for the third crimes.

Punishment of the crime

【Defendant A’s criminal power” was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the purpose of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on September 13, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month.

【Defendant A is a building company specializing in repair of cultural properties, who operates the KO, and Defendant B is a chief of the traditional temple “P” and Defendant C is a vice chief of the traditional temple “S” in Q in Q in Southyang-si, Namyang-si.

Defendant

A In line with the traditional temple Preservation and Maintenance Project, the inspection (a assistant) executing the restoration and repair of cultural properties can cover the remaining construction cost with the subsidies made by the state expenses, local government expenses, etc., and in collusion with Defendant B and Defendant C, which is the chief inspector of the inspection for which the budget for the subsidy for the repair work of cultural properties has been allocated, the inspection would make it possible for the inspection to receive the subsidy from the Namyang City, by pretending that the inspection would normally put the amount to be borne by the construction work.

1. Around January 2013, Defendants A and B conspired to submit an application for subsidies to the effect that subsidies of KRW 200,000,000, out of the total construction cost of KRW 600,000,000 for “construction work between the public structures of Q” to the Culture and Tourism Department of Nam-si located in Namyang-si, would be required to pay the remainder of KRW 400,000,000, and the application for subsidies were filed in sequence according to the weather and tourism division of Q.

However, in fact, even though the Defendants planned to undertake construction work solely with the above subsidies of KRW 400,00,000,000, without intent or ability to bring in the construction cost to Q from the beginning, the Defendants would have to undertake construction work equivalent to KRW 600,000,000, including KRW 200,000,000, when submitting to the public official in charge of the head of the Tong whose transaction statement was forged as the Defendant B’s letter of self-payment and self-payment were paid.