Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

A. Defendant A is the B representative director of the Bank of Korea.

A construction contractor shall subcontract to a constructor who has registered the type of business corresponding to the details of the construction work.

Nevertheless, on August 2015, the Defendant entered into a construction agreement with E who did not register the construction business at the new construction site of Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City D (4-story building 24-dong), the construction amount of which is equivalent to 2.48 billion won, among the new construction works of Gwangju Mine-gu, the Defendant entered into a construction agreement and subcontracted to E who did not register the construction business at the new construction site of Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju.

Accordingly, the defendant awarded a subcontract to a constructor who did not register the type of business corresponding to the construction work contents.

B. Defendant B’s Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. was a corporation established for the purpose, such as the steel reinforced concrete construction business, and committed a violation such as the above “A” in relation to the business.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant A subcontracted part of the construction work as described in the facts charged to Defendant A, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the judgment of the court below, E’s legal statement, and summary statement:

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

E, called as a sewage-grade, was filed with the original Defendants for a summary order, and the summary order became final and conclusive as it did not appeal against the said summary order.

However, E stated to the effect that it would be said that it would be said that it would be a subcontract for a wooden construction work and that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be a subcontract for a wooden construction work in the police statement.

According to the agreement written by E, B, and F, there are some statements that “on-site weather gold is the same as that of other canal rain 1” (Article 18), and the relationship between the Defendants and E is deemed a subcontracting relationship.