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

1. The Defendant: (a) from April 2006 to November 201, 201, served as the head of the site office of the D building in the UAE (hereinafter “C”); and (b) from around August 2006, the Defendant served as the head of the headquarters of the D building in the UAE (hereinafter “C”).

On June 6, 2008, the Defendant conspired with E to the effect that “The construction of the H building (hereinafter “instant construction”) will be ordered to be received by C in collusion with the victim G, the representative director of the FF corporation, at the early Scarate (hereinafter referred to as the “Fujah”), who is the Government’s stock corporation in the U.S. Scah (hereinafter “the instant construction”) and would be awarded a subcontract for the electrical equipment construction work, if he/she lends the H building construction (hereinafter “the instant construction”) at its expense to C within two weeks after the date of the construction contract, the Defendant would repay in full within two weeks after the date of the construction contract.”

However, the Defendant did not have the authority and intent to receive the above expense on behalf of C, and did not have the intent or ability to repay the above loan.

The Defendant and E received the remittance from the victim of KRW 2.5 million (Korean approximately KRW 700,163,717).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with E.

2. Defendant’s assertion (1) was that the Defendant received 2.5 million diversity from the victim (hereinafter “the instant money”), but this was merely an investment in C with a view to accepting a subcontract for a part of the instant construction work when the victim would not lend the Defendant personally, but C would have made an investment in the instant construction work, and ② the said money was used as the cost of receiving orders from all C, and it was sufficiently possible for C to receive the instant construction work at that time, but it was sufficiently possible for C to receive the instant construction work, and thus, it was impossible to do so for the Defendant to have a diversity for several reasons thereafter.

3. Determination

A. The conviction of conviction of the relevant legal doctrine is true to the extent that there is no room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt.