Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A operates F Co., Ltd., the main business of which is dredging, and F Co., Ltd. was a company in preparation for an application for temporary suspension of construction against GS construction in order to obtain dredging subcontracting in relation to the Geum River 4 River Section 6 works executed by GS Construction.

In addition, F Co., Ltd. was awarded a dredging subcontract from GS Construction and based on the right of commercial transport, and F Co., Ltd. was allowed to use the lodging and restaurant in order to operate the truck articles with the right of commercial transport in F Co., Ltd. However, the Defendants, despite being aware of the fact that the Defendants were in preparation for a provisional disposition lawsuit because they failed to receive dredging subcontracting from GS Construction, were in a state of being in progress due to their failure to receive dredging subcontracting, and thus, they were aware of the fact that there was a high risk of actual danger, thereby having the victim G to proceed with the business with the victim’s money.

Defendant

B found at the victim's house located at the Sinju-si in early March 2010, and "A, a person who is a person who has a right to operate a lodging in the Geum River 4 River, is operating it by leasing the above right to operate a lodging house from GS Construction, so it is possible to receive a right to operate a lodging house and provide a dump truck engineer with a lodging house. In this case, when investing KRW 40 million in one month, he/she would be responsible if he/she fails to impose a fine of KRW 78 million in one month."

In addition, around March 10, 2010, the Defendants issued a written contract to the effect that the Defendants are responsible for and attracting more than 100 children of the victims to K within Defendant C’s car located on the road of the J-owned station in front of the Jeju-owned station.

However, there was no fact that Defendant A has taken over the right of accommodation from GS Construction, and as such, Defendant A did not receive the dredging subcontract or the right of transportation from GS Construction, Defendant A would give the victim the right of accommodation operation or pay high profits by operating the accommodation as promised.