The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

In June 2015 to June 2018, the Defendant, while serving as the general secretary of the victim B, was in charge of the management of property, accounting affairs, etc., and in May 2017, the Defendant thought that he was using the construction cost of the Goyang-gu E-Ground Multi-Family Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) ordered by the victim C (mutual name: D) after receiving a refund of part of the construction cost of the Goyang-gu E-based E-Family Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

On May 2017, the Defendant proposed that C, who entered into the instant construction contract, should return part of the construction cost received from the victim by stating that “a certain degree of personnel would have been well awarded the bid price,” and that C would be able to receive a monthly progress without delay due to a public performance of the parties concerned during the construction work process, and that C would be able to pay the amount of KRW 40 million out of the fixed construction cost.

As above, the Defendant received unlawful solicitation from C in connection with the handling of the victim’s affairs, and acquired 43.7 million won, including the sum of KRW 15 million on September 7, 2017, KRW 18.14 million on October 18, 2017, KRW 200 million on November 23, 2017, and KRW 3.7 million on February 7, 2018, as the Defendant’s spouse’s H account.

The argument and summary of the argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel are consistent with the fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 43.7 million from C. However, the purport of the Defendant merely stated in the summary of the facts charged that he/she would take personnel in the final conference as is, and did not have received illegal solicitation, and thus, does not constitute a crime of taking

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances that are duly admitted and investigated evidence, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is sufficient to prove that the defendant has received an illegal solicitation as much as excluding a reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(e).