The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant A is published.

1. The facts charged [Presumption Facts] Defendant A is the trade name of “E”, Defendant B is the trade name of “F”, Defendant C is the trade name of “G” and Defendant C operates a septic tank cleaning business permitted by the head of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

Although the Defendants obtained permission from the cleaning company of the septic tank in other trade names, while using the office located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H on the grounds of the saving of expenses, etc., Defendant C concurrently performed not only his own business but also the accounting duties for Defendant A’s “E” and Defendant B’s “F”. The Defendants concluded a cleaning contract with the owner of the building subject to cleaning of the septic tank in the name of one of the three above three companies, but in fact, the said three companies performed the cleaning of the septic tank and operated it in the way of distributing profits therefrom.

The owner or manager of a building in a large building, such as apartment buildings, required the cleaning company to submit a measurement certificate with objective documents in order to verify whether the cleaning company has actually cleaned the quantity of excreta requested by the cleaning company.

Here, the term "certificate of measurement" refers to a certificate automatically recorded by the vehicle number and date in the case that the cleaning vehicle of a septic tank carries excreta cleaned in a building and leaves it to a disposal unit belonging to the Incheon Environmental Authority.

[Specific criminal facts] The Defendants conspired to receive excessive cleaning fees by means of cleaning another building after the date of cleaning the relevant building on May 2010 and the method of using the measurement certificate used as documents to the owners of another building after being issued after cleaning another building and cleaning the new building, as if the measurement certificate was issued by the owner of the other building, as if it was a measurement certificate issued, and again using it as documentary evidence.

Defendants around May 22, 2010, Incheon.