A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (X part of the bribe)

Approved Crime: Acceptance of Bribe

B. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. (a) and (b);

- Kim representative director

Daegu Seo-gu

Permanent Address Daegu:

2.(b)

Stock Company

Daegu Seo-gu

Representative Director Kim

3.(a)(b)

C Representative Director of DaD Co., Ltd.

Housing Daegu and Seogu District

Permanent domicile Gyeong-nam Group

4.(b)

Stock Company

Daegu Western-gu District:

Representative Director;

Wornasium

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Attorney Kim Jong-soo)

Attorney Park Im-soo (for defendant Lee In-bok)

Law Firm (Appointment of Defendant 1 et al.)

Attorney Lee In-bok

July 27, 2007;

1. Defendant 1 year of imprisonment, Defendant 1’s fine of KRW 10,00,00, and Defendant 1’s fine of KRW 10,000, and Defendant 1’s fine of KRW 10,00, and KRW 00, respectively.

2. The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 53 days, including the number of days under detention of the defendant Kim in the above sentence.

3. Defendant Co., Ltd.: An order to make the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines shall be issued to each stock company.

4. Of the facts charged against Defendant Kim, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the number of 300 million won per April 12, 2006 and the violation of the Framework Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the bribe and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) due to the number of 300 million won per April 12, 2006 among the facts charged against Defendant Kim Jae-, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the number of 300 million won per May 19, 206 (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to bribe and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the number of 300

4. Of the facts charged against Defendant Kim, the summary of the judgment of innocence as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the number of 300 million won per April 12, 2006 and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a bribe and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the number of 300 million won per April 12, 206

1. The summary of the court below's ruling that accepted a bribe of 100 million won or more in relation to the representative's duties deemed as public officials of the management entity specialized in improvement projects by Kim Jong (a statutory penalty: imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years; and at the same time, with respect to the conclusion of the contract, the above defendants, the interested parties, acquired property at the same amount by illegal solicitation from the construction company; (b) the defendant corporation and the stock company, the representative of each corporation, acquired property by illegal solicitation (a statutory penalty: a fine not exceeding 50 million won: a fine not exceeding 50 million won) in relation to the business of each corporation. Although the defendants received money, the defendants argued that they borrowed money, not in return for illegal solicitation, and therefore, the nature of the money received as the issue of this case and whether they are related to their duties and whether they are paid for illegal solicitation, and the punishment shall be determined appropriately within the scope of the statutory punishment where they are convicted, and the punishment shall be determined appropriately within the extent of the statutory punishment.

2. Criminal facts, etc. proved strictly;

A. Criminal facts

1) Defendant Kim Jong and Defendant Kim corporation were to serve as a director of the corporation, and they were to serve as representative director on April 2005, 10, and 4, and the corporation operates the corporation. Defendant corporation was a corporation established for the purpose of the improvement project management business of urban areas under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and registered as a specialized management business of urban areas under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Enforcement Rules

B) Defendant Kim Jong-soo's promotion of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association in Daegu District A, 2006, 7.

28. From July 2005 to July 2005, before being selected as a rearrangement project management contractor, a business agreement was concluded between the A district Housing Redevelopment Project Association Promotion Committee and the A district Housing Redevelopment Project Association Promotion Committee to perform the business as a rearrangement project management contractor, and the said redevelopment project was actually performed by proxy.

C) From 00 to 100, the president of the Daegu District Construction Corporation (hereinafter “construction”). Defendant Kim Jong-soo, the president of the Daegu District Development Project promoted by this Co., Ltd., in relation to the selection of a construction project for the development and improvement of housing units in the A District Development Project, he would be able to give favorable consideration to bidding conditions, etc., so that the construction may participate in the bidding, and as a result, promote the construction in good condition to the relevant parties or residents of the Promotion Committee of the Development and Improvement Project. Upon receiving an unjust solicitation to the effect that “I will assist the construction right by participating in the bidding on the face of the State,” in order to encourage the said Defendant to be selected as a construction project for the development and improvement project in the A District. After promising to the purport of the purport of the foregoing, he was loaned KRW 205,202,000,000 under the name of the Co., Ltd., which the said Defendant had been operating as a construction project for

D) Accordingly, Defendant Kim received a bribe equivalent to the above financial gains in relation to the duties of the representative of the rearrangement project management contractor who is deemed a public official in relation to the selection of construction works in A area, and at the same time, Defendant Kim acquired property gains equivalent to the above financial gains in relation to the conclusion of a contract or construction works as an interested party.

E) As above, Defendant Kim Kim, the representative director of the corporation, acquired pecuniary benefits from illegal solicitation in relation to the selection of construction works at the time of the rearrangement project in A area as above. (2) Defendant - and Defendant Kim corporation, appointed as the representative director of the corporation on December 11, 2003, and operated the corporation. The corporation was a corporation established for the purpose of the urban rearrangement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and registered as a rearrangement project manager under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Enforcement Rules of the same Act.

B) Defendant 206,88 for the promotion of redevelopment and consolidation projects in Daegu District B

3. The promotion committee: 2006, prior to the selection of the stock company as the specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects.

7.4. From around April 1, 200, the company entered into an agreement with the promotion committee of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in the tentative name, to perform the business as a rearrangement project management contractor, and the company actually vicariously performs the business related to the redevelopment and rearrangement project.

C) Around that time, Defendant 1: (a) from 00, 100, the president of the Daegu District Construction Co., Ltd., the president of the Construction Daegu District Development Project, “The construction conditions, etc. would be favorable for the participation in the tender regarding the selection of a construction project for the redevelopment of housing in B district, which is promoted by the said Defendant; and (b) would be promoted to the relevant parties of the Promotion Committee of the Promotion Committee of the Cooperatives for the Maintenance and Improvement Projects, residents, etc. to ensure that the construction can be granted the construction right by participating in the tender, upon receiving an unjust solicitation to the effect that the construction is being granted; and (c) the construction was given a loan of KRW 206,7.30,000,000,000, in return for the promise to the purport that the Defendant

D) Accordingly, Defendant received a bribe equivalent to the above financial gains in relation to the duties of the representative of the management entity specialized in improvement projects, who is deemed as public officials, and at the same time acquired pecuniary gains equivalent to the above financial gains in relation to the conclusion of a contract or the execution of construction works as an interested party.

E) In addition, Defendant corporation, as seen above, acquired property benefits by illegal solicitation in relation to the business affairs of Defendant A who is the representative director of the corporation.

B. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant Kim Jong-soo agreed to provide information on redevelopment sites, etc. promoted in Daegu area, although each of their respective companies operated by them did not enter into a interest agreement or provide security in receiving money from construction, and on behalf of them, they did not receive illegal solicitation in relation to their duties. 2)

As evidence consistent with the contents of the above Defendants’ legal proceedings, there were evidence Nos. 84 of the said Defendants’ written request by the Prosecutor for the execution of the payment of funds in return for the statement and provision of information at the investigative agency and the court (hereinafter “written request by the Prosecutor”). Nos. 84 of the said Defendants’ written request by the Prosecutor, and Nos. 800 of the head of the new Daegu branch office, “The current status report on the overall maintenance project district in Daegu City” was issued by the Co., Ltd. to the purport that “the construction of the documents attached to the evidence No. 66 of the said Defendants’ written request for the submission of the written report on the current status report on the maintenance project district in Daegu Metropolitan City (which refer to the construction of the documents attached to the evidence No. 66 and the construction of information related to the improvement project, which is made between the said Defendants, and the Co.,

However, according to the facts and legal principles based on the evidence stated in paragraph (3) and the following facts, information provided by Defendant Kim Jong-chul was disclosed on the Daegu Metropolitan City website or merely a brief outline of the Daegu Redevelopment District. Since the above business agreement, etc. merely appears to be a formal document for the construction and the concealment of illegal loan between the above Defendants, it is difficult to believe that Defendant Kim Jong-soo's statement related thereto is just, and it is difficult to believe that this00 made the above solicitation to the above Defendants, and it can be recognized that the above Defendants received financial gains as a bribe in return for such solicitation. Accordingly, the above Defendants' assertion is rejected.

(1) The period of legal fiction of a public official

Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents") provides that "the representatives (executive officers and employees in cases of a corporation) and employees (hereinafter referred to as "executive officers and employees") of a rearrangement project management contractor shall be deemed public officials in the application of crimes of bribery." Article 69 of the Act provides that only when they are registered as a rearrangement project management contractor with the Minister of Construction and Transportation by meeting certain standards of capital, technical personnel, etc., they may engage in the rearrangement project management business, such as establishment of associations, feasibility review, and authorization for project implementation. In light of the above provisions, where they are registered as a rearrangement project management contractor after meeting the requirements and procedures for establishment prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the executive officers and employees of a rearrangement project management contractor shall be deemed public officials and employees of the rearrangement project management contractor, who are naturally deemed to be subject to the application of the crimes of bribery, shall not be deemed to be a public official selected as a rearrangement project manager in each area.

(2) Business relevance and consideration;

However, since the reasons for deeming the executives and employees of the rearrangement project management specialist as public officials are the same as above, it is reasonable to interpret that the executives and employees of the rearrangement project management contractor may be punished by bribery only when they receive money and valuables in return for performing the duties of the rearrangement project management contractor under Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, or duties closely related thereto. Article 69(1)4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions provide that "support for the duties of the rearrangement project management contractor" shall be punished by the interested parties who have acquired the property or property benefits by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion or execution of the contract. Meanwhile, Articles 95-2 and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provide that the interested parties who have acquired the property or property benefits by illegal solicitation in connection with the conclusion or execution of the contract shall be punished.

(3) The entity receiving a bribe

On the other hand, where a public official allows a person to give a bribe to a third person without having received a bribe directly. If the third person receives a bribe as a person or representative of a public official, or in other circumstances where a person bears another person's living expenses, etc. or bears a debt to the third person, such as where a public official receives a bribe and a public official is exempted from receiving a bribe, or where there is a relationship that can be evaluated by social norms as being directly received by a public official, such as where the third person is exempted from receiving a bribe, the crime of offering a bribe is not a third person under Article 130-3 of the Criminal Act, but a crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act is established immediately if the elements of business relationship are

B) Defendant Kim Jong-han and stock company: The legal fiction period of public officials of the A District (1)

Defendant 30, October 30, 2003 and registered as a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects, and Defendant Kim Kim served as a director or representative director of the above company, which is deemed as a public official in the application of the crime of bribery from that time.

(2) From June 2005 to June 2005, Defendant Kim Jong-soo entered into a business agreement with the committee for promotion of housing redevelopment and improvement projects under the title of the A district to perform the business as a management contractor of the said project district, and thereafter, took charge of the redevelopment and improvement project by supporting the business affairs related to the selection of a construction project from around that time.

The residents of the A district and the members of the promotion committee for the A district did not have any professional knowledge about the redevelopment rearrangement project, and there was no ability to raise funds for the operation of the promotion committee for the maintenance project, so the expenses related to the above project prior to the opening of the residents' general meeting shall be borne in full by the stock company. In fact, the employees of the promotion committee for the maintenance project has performed almost most of the affairs that

Since March 205, construction has established an order implementation plan to be selected as a contractor for a redevelopment and improvement project of a zone A, and has prepared concrete measures to include a loan to a rearrangement project management contractor and a rearrangement project management contractor, including a rearrangement project management contractor. On December 20, 2005, the construction transferred KRW 200 million in the name of loan to a passbook in the name of a stock company, which was in charge of business as a rearrangement project management contractor of a zone A without making an agreement on interest or being provided security.

At the time of lending the above money, the corporation did not have any special asset except for office rent of KRW 10 million and office office house.

(3) In full view of the following indirect facts acknowledged by the evidence in paragraph (3), it can be acknowledged that there was an illegal solicitation to the effect that, in return for the loan of funds between Defendant Kim and Construction, the construction may be selected as the contractor of the rearrangement project in the A District.

The promotion committee of A District has decided to follow the method of open competitive bidding, and the public announcement was made on July 8, 2006 in order to select the said contractor. The qualification for participation in bidding was made by the said promotion committee, the invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of bidding, and the site site consultation council.

7. 10.0. The qualification for participation in bidding was set at 30.30 companies within the evaluation criteria of execution capacity of the Korea Construction Association in 2005. The company that paid 500 million won for participation in the site site conference and bid bond (except companies currently under statutory management, composition, workout program, etc.). At the time, the company was in charge of giving public notice on the selection of the contractor and advising on the method of selecting the contractor, etc. At the time, the company was in charge of giving public notice on the selection of the contractor, and the defendant Kim shall participate in the meetings of the promotion committee of the maintenance and improvement project to determine the participation in bidding to limit the participation in bidding to 10.30 or 50 companies, and the promotion committee limited the qualification for participation in bidding to 30 companies or less.On the other hand, the company submitted a tender notice to the Korea Construction Association on July 10, 2006 and the tender notice to 2006.

13. The bid compliance surveillance was selected as a contractor on the sole basis of the construction. On July 2006

28. The selection of the contractor at the residents' general meeting of the self-management association was made with the consent of 171 of 224 landowners (170 persons who were directly present at the general meeting (170 persons who were invalid), and there was a demand for written consent from the residents (47 persons who were present at the general meeting) in advance, and there was an agreement that the expenses for holding the general meeting were to be borne in advance. (4) Whether it is possible to determine whether Defendant Kim will receive a bribe or not, the amount of KRW 200 million was deposited in the passbook in the name of the corporation under the name of the corporation, and the construction and the first contract was made between the corporation for a monetary loan loan and the one. However, the above money loan contract was stated in the above monetary loan contract as joint and several sureties, Kim Jong-soo was an amount of money borrowed in the name of the above corporation, and the above 30% of the capital increase and 00% of the capital increase in the name of the shareholders, and the above 30% of the above funds were insufficient.

(C) HUD - Corporation: deemed to be a public official of B district (1)

Defendant Co., Ltd. was registered as a specialized management businessman of rearrangement project, and Defendant 1 was appointed as the representative director of the above company on December 11, 2003. As such, Defendant Co., Ltd. had worked as the representative director of the above company on December 11, 2003, Defendant 2003 and 12.

19. From 206, July 4, 2006, Defendant 2 was regarded as a public official in the application of the crime of bribery. From 2006 to 2006, Defendant 2, a corporation and the committee for the promotion of housing redevelopment project of the said project district, entered into an agreement with the said project district to perform the business as a rearrangement project management contractor of the said project district, and around that time, he/she was in charge of redevelopment improvement projects, including support for the selection of construction works of the rearrangement project project.

The residents of the B district and the members of the promotion committee of the promotion committee of the maintenance project were not having any professional knowledge about redevelopment improvement project, and there was no ability for residents to raise funds to operate the promotion committee of the maintenance project in their own, the expenses related to the above project before the residents' general meeting was held shall be borne by the stock company. In fact, the employees of the stock company were stationed in the office of the promotion committee of the promotion committee and were in charge of all the administrative procedures after the establishment of the promotion committee (resident consent, approval of the promotion committee of the maintenance project,

In order to be selected as a contractor for redevelopment and improvement projects in the district redevelopment and rearrangement project in the district B, the construction would provide loans to the rearrangement project management contractor in the same manner as the above sub-paragraph (b). On July 28, 2006, the construction transferred KRW 300,000 under the name of the loan to the head of the Tong in the name of the stock company without any agreement

In full view of the following indirect facts acknowledged by the evidence stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article, it can be acknowledged that there was an illegal solicitation to the effect that, at the time of lending the above money, there was a request for construction as a contractor of a rearrangement project in the B district where the company was in charge of the construction in return for a loan of KRW 300 million between the Defendant in charge and the construction in return for a loan of the said money.

B. On July 29, 2006, the promotion committee of the project in the district was published in Daegu City. At the time, the company was in charge of giving advice on the selection of the project executor, and the method of selecting the project executor. The promotion committee of the project should not be the legal management, composition, or workshop within 30th contract order, and the bid deposit was 2 billion won (200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

(4) Whether it is possible to determine whether Defendant 1 was a bribe or not or not, the amount of KRW 300 million in the name of loan 2006, July 28, 2006 is deposited into a passbook in the name of a stock company, and the contract for a monetary loan was made between the construction and the stock company, and the said money was paid to the stock company on the internal receipts and disbursements of money in the construction. However, the above contract for a monetary loan is written as joint and several sureties, and the above 00 is a small business entity with 11 employees and the above 00 is acting as the president of the stock company. The above 00 is in fact a position where Defendant 2 is to operate the above company by raising the operating funds of the above corporation. Considering the above circumstances, even if the above monetary loan contract was made in the name of the borrower in the form of the above corporation, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 was equivalent to the above 300 million capital gains from the above monetary loan contract.

3. Summary of evidence of admissibility and probative value;

- Partial legal advancement of the Defendants

- Inspection No. 2. 58, 59, 60. 74. 91, 107, 112 of each statement of statement - Inspection No. 3 (Investigation Report, Confirmation of Copy of Register of Corporation), No. 7 (Investigation Report, Confirmation Report of Selection of New Construction Corporation), No. 10 (Investigation Report, Report of Confirmation of Details of Currency, Report No. 15 (Investigation Report, necessity of Search and Seizure, and Confirmation of Receipt of Money): No. 16-1 (No. 22 of the Seizure Report, No. 23 (Investigation Report, Inspection Report of Evidence No. 1), No. 26, Notice No. 30, Notice No. 40, Notice No. 26, Notice No. 30, Notice No. 28, Notice No. 30, Notice No. 4, Notice No.

- Of the evidence No. 18 (Statement of Statement, 000) of the Prosecutor’s 18 (Statement of Statement, 200), the request was made to lend funds to the Construction Head Office around October 2005, 200, and the officers and employees of the head office at the time were raised suspicions that the management entity specialized in the improvement project and the Si/Gun/Gu are entrusted after the replacement, etc., the said request was not accepted for the first time

No. 20 of the Prosecutor’s Certificate 20 (Statement of Statement, Kim among the records of statement, the document of statement, and the document of statement, No. 62 of the Prosecutor’s Inspection (the document of statement, Kim Kim, the document of provisional contract, which is sent to the competent authority on June 2004, the document of provisional contract, and the document to be sent to the head of the competent authority after being prepared between the document of statement, the document of provisional contract, and the document of written consent, the meeting of the promotion committee of the maintenance and improvement project, the publication of newspapers related to the selection of the city project, the document of tender, and the preparation of the residents’ general meeting, etc. are practically performed by proxy the affairs of the promotion committee of the maintenance and improvement project. The statement to the purport of “the statement” was written.

- Of the Certificate 21 of Inspection (Report on Investigation Report and Confirmation of Loan Amount), "the Chairperson of the Promotion Committee of the Development and Improvement Project for A- District Development and Improvement Project in Group 2006, 10, 20, 794, 096, and 930 won was remitted from construction, and remitted KRW 2006, 10, 30, and 572, 343, and 930 won to Kim, and immediately deposited KRW 300,000 from the account of the stock company on the same day."

- Written evidence 38 (Investigation Report, 2005, 25, 25 March 25, 2005) (the report attached to the proposal for promoting reconstruction in the Daegu-gu area, Daegu-gu, including AD and C, to include the project district nine project districts in the loan of funds to a management business entity specialized in improvement projects in order to include the literature management business entity before the rearrangement project, and to secure a consortium advantage in order to use the consortium or Big (BG) right after the authorization for project implementation is granted. The statement to the purport of ""

- Written evidence Nos. 43 (Investigation Report, current status of distribution of the money of a construction nationwide rearrangement company) was executed from Yong-Namn area to A, a management entity specialized in the rearrangement project, and KRW 200 million was executed in B, to B, a management entity specialized in the rearrangement project. The statement to the effect that "" is written.

- Inspection No. 44 (Report on Investigation and Construction Loans Year-End Confirmation, 200 million won for A areas successful in A areas, 300 million won for B areas, 300 million won for D areas being promoted, and 300 million won for C areas, and 200 million won for each rearrangement project management entity, and the amount paid for D areas and C areas out of which is collected. The statement to the purport that "" is written.

- Statement No. 56 of the Prosecutor’s Certificate (Statement, 100), in particular, from around 206, 6, and 27, in charge of the redevelopment and improvement work in the Company. The statement to the effect that “the statement” is written.

- Written statement No. 63 of the Prosecutor’s Office (the document of statement, the document of statement, the document of statement, the document of statement, the document of statement to the effect that the Promotion Committee prior to the establishment of the Promotion Committee in connection with B, the office deposit, monthly rent, etc. were borne, and the official was stationed in the office and had several advice and work. There was no security or interest arrangements when borrowing money from the construction;

- Inspection No. 73 No. 73 (Investigation Report and Confirmation Report of Consideration: The confirmation of the minutes of the trial, “The real difficulty in securing claims for expenses invested due to the preferential securing of construction rights through the management entity specialized in improvement projects and financial support is anticipated, and it may be impossible to recover the expenses invested in the event of the occurrence of problems such as deprivation of construction rights. The management entity specialized in improvement projects must be the management entity specialized in improvement projects. However, in reality, the management entity specialized in improvement projects has to be able to provide financial support to the management entity specialized in improvement projects. In reality, the "No. 75 (Statement of Statement, Park 00) No. 75 (Statement of Statement, Statement, 00) of the Statement to the purport that the management entity specialized in improvement projects has no choice but to provide financial support to the management entity specialized in improvement projects. The "No. 00 corporation requested the residents of the B district to provide services from IP, the written consent for the promotion of the rearrangement projects association, the written consent for the designation of the rearrangement project area, and the residents' general meeting.

- Inspection No. 76 No. 76 (Investigation Report and Confirmation Report of Consideration: The statement to the effect that "the management contractor of a rearrangement project shall provide funds to the management contractor of a rearrangement project (the management contractor of a rearrangement project shall provide funds to the management contractor of a rearrangement project or the management service contract after the registration of the management cooperative for the implementation of the rearrangement project or the management service contract of the maintenance project; the collection of funds; the loan of approximately KRW 500 million on the basis of one site; the management contractor of a rearrangement project; the management contractor of a rearrangement project shall provide funds to the management contractor of a rearrangement project; and the management contractor of a rearrangement project shall delegate the conditions for bidding to the management contractor of a rearrangement project)."

- Written evidence No. 92 (Investigation Report, A District Contract Selection Report) “The opinions of the members of the maintenance and improvement project association’s promoters on the qualifications for bidding in the present maintenance and improvement project of Defendant Kim Kim, were adjusted to up to 30 and up to 50 to put them to voting.” The written evidence No. 93 (Report on Investigation Report and Confirmation of Current Status of Loans extended by the Maintenance and Improvement Project) “The amount of KRW 300,000,000 related to the Daegu DD was collected on December 15, 2006, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 related to the Daegu DD was collected on October 30, 100.

- Examination No. 116 No. 116 (Examination Statement, Statement of Kim00, in particular, “construction was lent money to specialized management contractors in order to prevent in advance the situation in which bidding conditions cannot be participated in by means of higher bidding conditions.”

- Written evidence 117 of autopsys (written evidence 117 of interrogation of suspect, written statement 00, and, in particular, the loan was executed under the expectation that it would be able to assist in business activities related to the selection of a contractor for each maintenance project. The statement to the effect that “

The prosecutor evidence 118 (Statement of Statement, 00)'s statement, in particular, "At the time of giving money to a management entity specialized in improvement projects, there was a expectation that it would not be able to help in the process of selecting a construction project contractor, and at the time, Defendant Kim Kim - will cooperate in the construction project. The statement to the purport that "" is stated.

4. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on criminal facts;

- Relevant legal principles for criminal facts

- Defendant Kim, and Appointment: Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of acceptance of bribe under Article 95-2 and Article 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry)

- Defendant corporation, stock company: each of the following provisions: Article 98(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 95-2 - Commercial concurrence

- Defendant Kim - Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (the between the crimes of acceptance of bribe and the crimes of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the punishment provided for the heavier crimes of acceptance of bribe)

- the choice of penalties

Determination of imprisonment for the crime of acceptance of bribe

-in addition to the number of days of detention (as to Defendant Kim Jong-il);

Article 57 (53 days = 27 days + 26 days) of each Criminal Act

- Provisional Payment Order (as to Defendant Stock Company)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

- Publication of summary (as to Defendant Kim & corporation)

Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act

5. In addition to the common sentencing grounds, such as the facts of sentencing, the age, occupation, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of Defendant Kim, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the following special circumstances (a comprehensive consideration of favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, and other circumstances) shall be determined.

A. Common matters (1) Urban Improvement Act was enacted in 2002 in order to eliminate the transparency and integrity of business between urban construction and redevelopment or reconstruction improvement projects, and to ensure the role and productivity of a partnership, etc., and the crime of this case was committed in violation of the purpose of the Urban Improvement Act at the expiration of a considerable period of time from the time when the Urban Improvement Act was enacted. The Urban Improvement Act was enacted in 2002 in order to improve the transparency of business between the project implementer and the redevelopment or reconstruction projects, and to improve the urban environment, and to contribute to improving the quality of residential life.

(2) The promotion committee of a district and B district could not, in fact, raise operating expenses for implementing redevelopment and improvement projects. Accordingly, it was concluded that the stock company and the stock company, which are the specialized management company of rearrangement projects, would bear the expenses until the time when the rearrangement project was selected by the contractor of rearrangement projects, and would implement the rearrangement project. (3) The Defendants did not have the necessary financial resources as the operator of the specialized management company of rearrangement projects or the specialized management company of rearrangement projects, and had the Defendants undertake the redevelopment and improvement project of the district of each year by bearing the expenses incurred in the initial rearrangement project as above, and requested the specialized management company of rearrangement projects to find a new Daegu branch, which provided loans to the specialized management company of rearrangement projects to raise funds.

(4) Although it is not possible to compute specifically the pecuniary gains acquired by Defendant Kim Kim, financial gains, which are property gains, are considerably large in terms of the possibility of actual financing, cost, etc.

(5) As a result, the purpose of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and the fairness in the selection of the contractor was damaged by bypassing the management entity specialized in the improvement project, and the funds were provided in advance to the maintenance and improvement project association. (6) Defendant Kim divided his mistake in depth.

B. Individual matters regarding Defendant Kim (1) Defendant Kim was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1997, and there were no other criminal records.

(2) Defendant Kim Jong-soo purchased an Ecoo passenger car under the name of the corporation with the borrowed money from construction, repaid the personal debt of KRW 170 million to 00,000, and disbursed the amount of KRW 70 million with the house purchase fund. (3) The order of contracting the construction is the 27th order in 2005, and the participation in the bid in the A district was within the 30th order in the contract, and the construction was actually selected as the contractor for the improvement project in the A district.

C. Individual matters regarding Defendant A (1) No other criminal record was sentenced to a fine of KRW 100,00,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1989, and a fine of KRW 300,000 for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 1993. (2) Defendant A’s appointment did not purchase four motor vehicles including Ecoos motor vehicles in the name of the stock company with the money borrowed from construction, etc. and explain the place of cash withdrawal in detail.

(3) The order of priority in the contract for construction was 27th 2005, and the participation in the bid in B was within 30th tier in the contract, and the consortium, including the construction, was actually selected as the contractor for the rearrangement project in B.

6. The portion not guilty

A. Summary of the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a bribe point 1) that each of Defendant Kim 2005, 120, 200, 200 million won and Defendant 1 received KRW 2006, 28 July 28, 2006 and received KRW 300,000,000

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: ① under the solicitation of December 20, 2005 to select KRW 20,200,000 as a contractor for a rearrangement project from the construction to the construction of the construction of the building; ② under the solicitation of the representative of the rearrangement project management contractor, he received a bribe in relation to the duties of the representative of the rearrangement project management contractor; ② upon receiving the transfer of KRW 2006,7.30,000,000 from the construction of the Daegu District, he received a bribe in relation to the duties of the representative of the rearrangement project management contractor.

2) The evidence as stated in paragraph (3) and the evidence as stated in paragraph (1), 8, 9, 52, 78, 90, and 97 of the Prosecutor’s Certificate may be acknowledged as follows. In light of the following facts or circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the construction solely based on the facts or circumstances described in paragraph (b) transfers money to the accounts under the name of SD and stock company without intent to return money from the Defendants, and that the Defendants received money without intent to return the said money. Other documentary evidence requested by the Prosecutor is not directly related to the above business district or prepared at the time of remitting the said money, and it is insufficient to prove that the Defendants received money from the Defendants constitutes a bribe. Accordingly, it is difficult to conclude that the money transferred to the Defendants, such as the construction of a crime, cannot be deemed a bribe.

B) In addition to using the money received from Defendant Kim Kim Construction as operating funds of each corporation listed as a borrower under the contract for a loan for consumption of money, Defendant Kim used the money as funds for purchasing a house of Defendant Kim and used a car in the name of a corporation for personal purposes. The purport of the above provision is that the internal document of construction made by the person as of April 1, 2007 is not designated as a “construction site” and the redevelopment district (which is not a redevelopment district of this case). The purport is that the said money is being recovered only from the redevelopment district (which is not a redevelopment district of this case). The above money is not clearly stated in the account books of the corporation and the corporation, but some of the representative director borrowed money from the construction on the corporate financial statements, such as the company’s financial statements

The purpose of the investigation is not clearly revealed, and there is a short-term loan only from the balance sheet of the corporation which was prepared after the commencement of the investigation.

C) The time when the investigation began on December 19, 2006, 2006, 12. The time when the investigation began, which was the previous 206, 30, 206, 2006, 12.

15. A stock company and a stock company returned part of the money transferred for construction as a loan. The construction selected the method of remitting the money from the account in the name of the construction to the account in the name of the DoE or stock company in the name of the DoE or stock company in the manner of paying funds to Defendant Kim Kim Kim, and subsequently clearly revealed the flow of funds. The cash loan contract was prepared between the construction and the Defendant and the stock company, and Defendant Kim Kim, respectively. Since the management entity of the improvement project is lacking in financial capacity, from the perspective of construction, the construction may have a tendency to promote the collection of loans preferentially to the rearrangement project zone in which the construction was not selected as the contractor of the improvement project. In actual internal documents of construction, there is no difficulty in collecting funds if the construction is selected as the contractor of the improvement project, but it is difficult to deem that the above money was given on the condition that it is actually difficult to recover funds if it is not selected as the contractor of the improvement project. In addition, the "Committee of the executives of the construction" recognizes the method of securing claims at the meeting.

3) Sub-decisions

If there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense, it does not violate the principle of no accusation even if the court recognized facts different from the facts charged without going through changes in indictment to the same extent.

Although the contents and forms of criminal acts are different from the act of accepting money and valuables and the act of accepting money equivalent to the financial gains, the facts are identical to the fact that Defendant Kim 200 million won and Defendant Kim 1 transferred money to KRW 300 million from the construction. However, only the judgment on whether the transferred money is the name of the loan is different. In addition, since Defendant Kim Kim - voluntarily argued that each of the above money was lent from the construction and argument was made, the above money was argued that it was loaned from the construction, and contrary to the facts charged, it does not cause a substantial disadvantage to the above Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights.

Therefore, among the facts charged in the case of this case, the defendant Kim 205, Dec. 20, 2002, and the defendant's she received KRW 300 million on July 28, 2006, among the facts charged of this case, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of a bribe constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant Kim and the she should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of each of the

B. A summary of the facts charged concerning the receipt of KRW 300 million on April 12, 2006 by Defendant and Defendant - the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a bribe and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of Co., Ltd.)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) while carrying out a vicarious execution of the project for renovation of housing units under the process from around July 2005, 2005 to Daegu District, from 00 to 12, 200, 100, 100, 2000, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 300, 200, 300, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 300,000, 300,000 won of 20,000 won of 30,000,000 won of 30,000 won of 30,000,00.

2) Whether there was an unlawful solicitation in relation to ‘business relationship' and ‘the conclusion or execution of a contract'

In applying the crime of bribery to executives and employees of a management entity specialized in improvement projects who is deemed public officials under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, it shall be interpreted limited to the cases where money and valuables are received in return for the performance of the duties related to the duties of the management entity specialized in improvement projects under Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas or the duties closely related thereto, as seen in the paragraph (b) of the above 2.B. and Articles 95-2 and 38-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provide that the interested parties who have acquired the property or property benefits by illegal requests in connection with the conclusion of a contract or construction works shall be punished.

In a case where a rearrangement project management contractor receives money and valuables or benefits from a construction company that wishes to be selected as a contractor in accordance with an agreement with the promotion committee under Article 69 of the Urban Improvement Act while he/she was selected as a rearrangement project management contractor in the relevant redevelopment project promotion zone and actually has been in charge of duties under an agreement with the promotion committee, the relationship with the duty relationship or the contract or construction and its consideration may be recognized, and the conclusion is the same even if it is not connected with the real or present interests.

However, the above business relationship, etc. can be recognized where the management entity specialized in improvement projects actually takes charge of the business as the management entity specialized in improvement projects in the specific redevelopment project promotion zone, and if the management entity specialized in improvement projects is not in charge of such business, it cannot be recognized that the management entity specialized in improvement projects could take charge of the business as the management entity specialized in improvement projects in the relevant redevelopment

According to the evidence of Paragraph 3, at the internal meeting of the executive officers of 2006, Mar. 27, 2006, the company passed a resolution to provide 300 million won to the company, which is the specialized management businessman of the C district, with the money of 300 million won to the company, which is the specialized management businessman of the C district, and the payment was made on April 12, 2006. However, the defendant Kim Jong stated that he/she performed his/her business as a specialized management businessman of the C district from June 2006, when he/she received the above money at the investigative agency, and that he/she performed his/her business as a specialized management businessman of the C district from June 2006 (at the time of his/her appointment as the representative director of the defendant Kim Jong-soo Co., Ltd.), during the cross-examination under this law.

The redevelopment project was entrusted by the rebuilding committee, the rearrangement project association, etc., and was in the process of carrying out the project. around October 205, 2005, at the request of the redevelopment project association promotion committee, etc. in the said C1-2 district, and supported the above C1-2 district operation funds of KRW 150 million and the amount of KRW 100 million in operation funds of the A district among the amounts leased from the construction. Although there was a statutory statement to the purport that it was ", the above statement alone cannot be deemed that Defendant Kim was acting as a rearrangement project management contractor from October 205, 200. The above C district is currently selected as a designer, and there was no construction company participating in the tender for the selection of the construction project, and there was no other fact that the redevelopment project was performed as a rearrangement project management contractor from 00 to 200,000,000 won in fact, and there was no other evidence that the redevelopment project management contractor was performed as a rearrangement project management contractor from 206,000.

there is no evidence that it is deemed that there is no evidence.

3) Sub-decisions

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime about the relation with the present duties, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. The summary of the facts charged concerning the receipt of KRW 300 million on May 19, 2006 by the defendant - the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the bribe point and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by the defendant clinical Corporation)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) While Defendant 1 was carrying out a project on the project on the renovation of housing units in Daegu District from February 2, 2006 to performing the project on behalf of implementing the project on behalf of implementing the project on the renovation of housing units in Daegu District, from 006, May 1, 2007 to 00, the Daegu District President of the Construction, which is the Daegu District of the Construction, favoring the bidding conditions, etc. so that construction may participate in the bidding in relation to the selection of the project on the redevelopment of housing units in the zone promoted by the Co., Ltd.; and (b) promoting the project on behalf of the parties to the Promotion Committee of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives or residents of the Promotion Committee of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives to promote the construction in a favorable manner. The purport of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) after the promise to the purport of this, Defendant 206,5,19,300,000 won from the construction to the representative director of the Bank; (c.) simultaneously, Defendant 3.

2) Whether there was an unlawful solicitation in relation to ‘business relationship' and ‘the conclusion or execution of a contract'

The relationship between the duties of executives and employees of the management entity specialized in improvement projects as above and the conclusion of contracts or construction works may be recognized where the management entity specialized in improvement projects is in charge of the duties of the management entity specialized in improvement projects in the specific redevelopment project promotion zone, and if the management entity specialized in improvement projects was not in charge of such duties, there is a possibility that the management entity specialized in improvement projects will take charge of the duties

The fact that the duty relationship, etc. cannot be recognized solely on the basis of the circumstances alone is as seen earlier.

According to the evidence of Paragraph 3, at the internal meeting of the executives of construction on May 16, 2006, 2006 to provide 300 million won to the corporation, which is the specialized management businessman of the D district, and to pay it on 2006, 5, and 19. However, although the defendant was found at the investigative agency to have promoted the business as the specialized management businessman of the D district, he did not mention at any time whether he was in charge of the above business as the specialized management businessman of the D district. However, according to the data submitted by the counsel of the defendant corporation, he did not mention at any time when he was in charge of the above business as the specialized management businessman of the rearrangement project of the partnership after obtaining the approval of the committee for promotion of the rearrangement project as the specialized management businessman of the rearrangement project of the rearrangement project from the resident general meeting on March 9, 200.

At present, the D Zone can be recognized as having not been selected as a contractor for the improvement project, and there is no evidence to verify at any time from the time of the D Zone as a contractor for the improvement project as a contractor for the improvement project.

If so, the management entity specialized in the management of the D district in the above section of the construction.

It is insufficient to recognize that a stock company was actually performing its business as a specialized management contractor in the redevelopment and improvement project district above since May 2006, and there is no evidence to recognize that the money that the defendant was paid from construction on May 19, 2006 was paid in relation to the selection of a contractor as a specialized management contractor for rearrangement projects.

3) Sub-decisions

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime about relation with the current duties, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges leap-gu - - The presiding judge

Judges Jeong Jae-in

Judges Lee Jae-tae