All Defendants publish the summary of the judgment of innocence.

A. In full view of the fact that there is no need to acknowledge that the Defendants were supplied with sea sand exceeding the standard value on the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants were used.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined on August 29, 2014 in violation of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, i.e., (i) where the aggregate extraction business entity supplied the Defendants with sea sand is not found, (ii) where the investigation agency directly collects sea sand samples and measured sea sand samples, the highest concentration of washing sand is merely 0.17, and (iii) where the aggregate concentration of sea sand exceeds 0.454 to 0.098, as described in this part of the facts charged, in light of the following: (i) where the aggregate extraction business entity supplied the Defendants with sea sand is not found; (ii) where the investigation agency directly collects sea sand samples and measured sea sand samples, the highest concentration of sand before washing is merely 0.17; and (ii) where the aggregate concentration of sand exceeds 20 times through 0.098, as described in this part of the facts charged, it is difficult to understand that the Defendants were being supplied with sea sand in excess of 20 times or more 0.8.0.8.

For this reason, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants were supplied with sea sand exceeding the standard values on the date stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. According to the conclusion of the judgment, since all of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, all of the facts charged in this case should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the Defendants should be published