The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On Dec. 2, 2010, the Defendant stated that “In order to promptly obtain approval for use of E and F, the Defendant shall lend the power of the Director of the Urban Bureau before H to the victim G, a stock company D operator, in relation to the approval for use of E and F, at the office of the company D in Jung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, the Defendant stated that “I would promptly obtain the approval for use of E and F, the power of the Director of the Urban Bureau before H should be lent to the Director of the Urban Bureau prior to H, and

Since December 31, 2010, the above G transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account in the name of personnel expenses for obtaining approval for use of the E building from the director of the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

However, even if the defendant receives money from the above G as personnel expenses, he did not have the intention or ability to obtain F approval for use in favor of the public official in charge of E and F approval for use.

The defendant, by such a method, by deceiving the above G, acquired 10 million won, and at the same time, received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting and arranging affairs handled by the public officials.

2. The Defendant’s defense counsel acknowledged that he received KRW 10 million from I on December 31, 2010. However, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from I on the part of the design cost claims with respect to I, not consistently in the investigative agency and the court, but consistently in the manner of soliciting public officials.

3. Whether the accused has received KRW 10 million under the pretext of solicitation to public officials;

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the following facts are acknowledged.

1 At the time of the instant case, K and G were the joint representative director, L were the chief manager, M was a person operating I who is in charge of E’s construction, and the Defendant, as a certified architect operating N, is in charge of design and supervision of E, while changing the purpose of use of E’s facilities.