The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the actual operator of the management company specialized in the improvement project of H H redevelopment project in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is a public official under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; on February 25, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with labor for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and on May 14, 2009, the judgment became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, the above redevelopment project was established on May 18, 2006 the basic plan to improve the residential environment of the city on January 19, 2007, the approval of the committee for the establishment of the association on August 23, 2007, the designation of the rearrangement zone on August 23, 2007, the project area approved on May 27, 201, the establishment of the association on May 27, 201, the project area of which is 329,60 square meters, the planned volume of 200% below the maximum permissible volume of housing redevelopment project, and the maximum permissible volume of 23

On April 3, 2008 and May 2, 2008, at the temple parking lot near Ulsan-gu Postal Dong, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant received an order from J and KK’s president, who is the removal company, to deliver money and valuables to the Defendant from L in charge of the management and supervision of the financial execution and overall affairs of each of the above companies, as the president of J and K, Co., Ltd., the Defendant received an order from J M of the M of the Co., Ltd., which received an order to deliver money and valuables from the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant received KRW 45 million in cash as a reward.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 90 million in total with respect to his duties.

2. The Defendant alleged that he was not the representative or employee of I, a specialized management businessman of the rearrangement project, and the Defendant received money in relation to his duties.

Even if the acceptance of bribe is not established, it is not established.

In addition, it is true that the defendant received total of KRW 90 million from M twice as stated in the facts charged, or it was borrowed from M, and there is no fact that the defendant received money from M as a solicitation for removal works.

3. Relevant legal principles are the cities and cities.