Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. According to the summary of the facts charged, the Defendants, as the residents of the village in the Dasan-gun, Namsung-gun, the following facts can be acknowledged on May 11, 201: (a) the date on which the Defendants received KRW 10 million in collusion; and (b) the date on which the Defendants received KRW 33 of the records of evidence on May 11, 2016, and the statements by the Defendants and F.

Therefore, “ May 11, 2016,” among the facts charged, appears to be a clerical error in the indictment.

At the time of the construction of a grgeries by the Cooperatives of the Republic of Korea in the Neisung-Eup of the Republic of Korea

In order to agree on KRW 40 million on the condition that the decision of the provisional disposition for the suspension of new construction works in F and Yangyang, it was kept for the residents of the village by receiving KRW 10,000 in total and KRW 10,000 in the face of the Village Development Fund.

Around that time, the above 10 million won was arbitrarily used and embezzled.

2. Determination

A. During the process of the preliminary injunction case against construction prohibition, F had obtained permission under the name of G, the name of the denying entity, and had been carrying out construction works for the original ethic field E (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2) Defendant A: (a) “The head of the D Village, who is the head of the D Village, has kept the seal of the resident; (b) voluntarily prepared a written consent of the resident in the resident’s name and delivered it to G; and (c) G submitted the written consent to the competent authority to obtain permission related to the instant construction based on this, Defendant A needs to have the right to request the suspension of the instant construction and to preserve it.

“The ground for filing an application for provisional injunction against construction works” was the Gwangju District Court 2017Kahap61, and the Gwangju District Court rendered a decision to accept an application for provisional injunction against Defendant A on March 10, 2017.

3) In the instant case of raising an objection against the foregoing provisional disposition (Seoul District Court 2017Kahap89) the G’s agent “G was unaware of the fact that the written consent of the resident was made falsely, and 12 households among the 16 households residents living around the construction site among the 16 households living around the construction site.