The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant: (a) served in G Co., Ltd. from June 1996 to July 2010; and (b) served in G Co., Ltd.; (c) and (d) carried out by the implementation company H (hereinafter “H”) and the Si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) from June 2004, the Defendant was in charge of duties related to the shopping mall development project of Gulri-si, Gul City.

H around October 2004, around the above shopping mall development site, entered into an agreement to pay the amount of KRW 4 billion for the agreement on the destruction of the above ground building to K, who is the owner of the above ground-based building and four lots of land buildings in the Guri-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

After that, as the H was unable to believe that it submitted false receipts to G, G transferred the name of the operator of the development project and the owner of the building in the name of H from May 30, 2005 to five persons designated by G including the Defendant in the name of the project owner and the owner of the building in the name of H.

However, in the process of the transfer of the above enforcement right, in order to make the G internal report or approval on the shopping mall development project of this case, the document written by H and K indicating the agreed amount of KRW 4 billion in the “agreement on the destruction of a building within the scope of land development” was modified by attaching the agreed amount of KRW 2 billion in computer to the corresponding part of the original agreement.

The Defendant, while knowing that the alteration was made, filed a lawsuit against G and the Defendant, etc. on April 20, 2007, which was in possession of the modified agreement (hereinafter “instant alteration agreement”) and sought payment of the above KRW 4 billion against G and the Defendant, etc. around April 20, 2007, by submitting the above alteration agreement and wanting to be exempted from the payment of the above KRW 4 billion to K. On November 19, 2007, the Defendant, who was aware of such alteration, issued the instant alteration agreement to the employees of the third-public-private partnership in the same court, and exercised it as if it was duly constituted, by deceiving the said court or tribunal through the submission of the said alteration agreement, intended to discharge the obligation to pay the above KRW 4 billion by deceiving him.