The defendants are all innocent.

1. Occupational breach of trust;

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a public official of Grade VII in incumbent position facilities in the accounting information of the office of the Daejeon Metropolitan City, and that the Defendant was in charge of the receipt of an application for permission for displaying outdoor advertisements from the construction division from November 23, 2004 to July 18, 2012, such as receipt of an application for permission for displaying outdoor advertisements, collection of fees and deposit of banks, certification, and permission.

Around February 11, 2011, the Defendant’s written indictment “Around February 14, 2011,” clearly appears to be a clerical error and corrected ex officio. In receipt of an application for permission to display outdoor advertisements from a civil petitioner at the building and office of the Daejeon Metropolitan City E-gu Office, the Defendant collected normal fees and certified the applicant, and then sent the application for permission to the public service center, and received the application for permission from a person who is in violation of his/her occupational duty to receive the application for permission, and the “15,000 won” of the written indictment in KRW 48,380, is clearly corrected ex officio, on the ground that it is a clerical error.

From May 9, 201, the applicant received an application for permission without demanding Eul and issued the written permission, and received the application without demanding the total of 297,920 won over 13 times from the time to May 9, 201, including the issuance of the written permission from the time of receipt of the application for permission from the time of receipt of the application for permission from May 1, 201, and issued the written permission, thereby allowing the civil petitioner to gain property benefits equivalent to the same amount, and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the E-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office of the Victim Daejeon.

B. The Defendant asserts that there is no intention of breach of trust merely because it is an error of the wind that the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the investigation agency, does not comply with the relevant provisions.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, (1) an application for permission has been received without paying fees in the state of non-certification as shown in the facts charged, and (2) the Defendant, who is the person in charge, has not verified it and has not paid the fees.