Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A completed the construction of an officetel with 40 households of the 11th floor above the ground and the 2nd floor below the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) by being awarded a contract from F Co., Ltd., the owner of the construction; (b) Defendant A was not paid the construction cost of KRW 2.870 million; (c) Defendant B was a person who acquired a lien on the instant officetel; and (d) Defendant B was a person who was in charge of legal advice while working as an employee of the Defendant A’s office from the attorney-general to the date of 2007.

1. On May 14, 2010, Defendant A’s perjury appeared and testified at the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu as a witness of the case, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the above court held that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant would trust the instant officetel in the second financial rights. On November 17, 2005, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the agreement was made between G, H, and Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “On-site”), and that the agreement was made between G, K, and the husband of K, which lent the bid bond, and that it would be KRW 2 billion in the name of H and notarial property of the Defendant, and that the instant agreement would be made notarial in the name of the Defendant’s trust and notarial property of the Defendant.

(2).