The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

(b) immediately after the completion of the report on the implementation of the principal duties of the Gu Office Secretariat, the D Public Parking Lot Operation Plan has been drawn;

After having made a statement to the purport that “A parking fee is indicated as “(FF 5,12 pages)” (FF 5,12 pages), and F on November 25, 2013, both the operational plan proposed by F and the operational plan proposed on November 28, 2013 as “200 won per five minutes”, and thereafter, it was confirmed that the parking fee was indicated as “5 minutes per five minutes” and that the materials were made on November 28, 2013 to be reported to the Gu Council of the President of the Regular Bureau on November 25, 2013.

In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the statement to the effect that “” was re-written, it is difficult to believe the above F’s statement as it is.

(2) From January 1, 2014, C intended to apply the parking fee of “200 won per five minutes” to D public parking lots, but in the D public parking lot operation plan established on December 2, 2013, C estimated the balance of parking lot operation by applying the parking fee standard for “300 won per five minutes” as follows:

[1] 2,435,094, 2,711, 714- 2,714, 276,711, 140-2,711, 144, parking time for 2,630,360 won x 187 thousand won x 36,360 won x 276,784,050 won x 80,000 won x 30,000 won x 360,000 won x 30,000 won x 37,000 won x 86,000 won x 86,000 won x 1,700 won x 12 months x 204,000 won x 75,000 won x 85,000 won x 50,000 won x 5,000 won x 5,05.