The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The Defendant was a director of the Mapo-gu Urban Environment Improvement Project Association in Mapo-gu Seoul, and became aware of G by introducing F, a director of the association.

The Defendant introduced H as the contractor of the above improvement project from G, and caused this relationship to G, thereby giving him the right to purchase underground commercial buildings in the building to be newly constructed as the above improvement project and the right to purchase sales agency.

A. On February 24, 2012, at around 16:00 on February 24, 2012, the Defendant received a solicitation from the above G to request the purchase right of underground shopping malls and the purchase right of sales agency as above, and received a cash reward of KRW 10 million in its name.

B. On April 5, 2012, the Defendant was granted KRW 10 million in cash from the said G through the said F under the said name, from K real estate located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I.

(c)

On July 27, 2012, the Defendant received cash KRW 10 million from the above G through the above F under the above title from the above K real estate around July 27, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of 30 million won in total in relation to his duties.

2. The Defendant, a director of the Mapo-gu Urban Environment Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant rearrangement Project”) in the process of selecting H (hereinafter “H”) as the contractor of the instant rearrangement project, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion by the defense counsel, was that he came to know of G by introducing F, a director of the instant association, in the process of selecting the instant rearrangement project.

However, the Defendant did not state the date and place on which G or receive a bribe from G at the time and place stated in the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial on February 24, 2012, the conviction of a person guilty in the part of the accepted bribery (hereinafter “the first accepted bribery”) ought to be based on a strict evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and such doubt may be excluded.