1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

3. Defendants each of the above facts.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendants conspired to enter into a construction contract with a limited liability company E (hereinafter “E”) with the amount of KRW 10,000,000 less than the actual construction price stated in the facts charged; and (b) there was no fact that the Defendants attempted to receive rebates of KRW 10,000,000 from E, the lower court accepted the facts charged in the instant case and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the name of the crime in the trial room as “occupational Breach of Trust”, and the applicable provisions of law as “Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act”, respectively, and applied for amendments to an amendment to an indictment with the content of changing the facts charged as stated in the following facts. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal, and it is again decided as follows.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives of this case") of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoul Metropolitan City, and the defendant A is the auditor.

Defendant

B around February 2, 2011, around the above apartment building’s outer wall repair and painting construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) was ordered and bid procedures were conducted, and thus, there was a duty to fairly and faithfully perform the work of selecting the construction company and paying the construction cost.

Nevertheless, the Defendants violated their duties and ordered E to conclude a contract for construction work at a price higher than the actual contract price with the council of occupants' representatives in this case, and receive the difference.