Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud against F Co., Ltd. is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case, G is acquitted.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in construction business, and H is a person who operates “F” of a stock company.

H, around May 2003, concluded a construction contract with I and performed the new construction of apartment lots located outside J and 48 lots in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul. However, it was difficult for the Defendant, who was aware of the introduction of K, L, and M, had the ability to conclude the construction contract with I with the N Co., Ltd. under favorable conditions. Accordingly, the said construction contract was reversed and the Defendant and N Co., Ltd were to implement the construction contract with the N Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, around February 26, 2004, at the office of Cheongju-si, the Defendant, H, and K gather all, and if the Defendant is unable to select a contractor and conclude a contract with N Co., Ltd. by March 9, 2004, the Defendant shall pay KRW 50 million to H, and the said money shall be deposited in advance (Article 3) and if the Defendant wishes to conclude a construction contract with N Co., Ltd. within the above period, H shall pay KRW 90 million to the Defendant as performance money and KRW 50 million deposited by the Defendant (Article 4). Based on the above agreement as of the same day, the agreement was prepared by the notary public’s office as “F,” the debtor at the P Co., Ltd. as “F,” and was prepared by up to 950 million won a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (Article 1330, 204).

However, the terms and conditions of the construction contract that the defendant concluded with N Co., Ltd. were "2.5 million won per average unit price and "47.4 billion won per total contract amount". At the time of construction competition, the defendant was not aware of the person who is in a position to decide the actual execution of the construction contract among the persons related to N Co., Ltd., and it was impossible from the beginning to conclude the construction contract with N Co., Ltd. under such terms and conditions.

Therefore, the defendant, on March 9, 2004, set time limit.