Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who has served as a public official E from February 6, 1993 to December 5, 1995, Defendant B is a certified architect, and the Defendants jointly operate the F architect Office.

1. From October 201, the Defendants’ co-principal Defendants requested G to design and supervision services for the purpose of altering the purpose of use of G’s ground map outside H and two parcels of land located in the development-restricted zone to a warehouse for the purpose of storing agricultural and fishery products, conducted a relevant legal review and a prior investigation, and concluded a service contract of KRW 100 million (including value-added tax) around February 201.

At the time of the conclusion of the above service contract, although the building area of the above fraternity was registered as 3,172.77 square meters on the building ledger, the actual building area was limited to 1,650 square meters in total due to the partial destruction or damage of the building.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to apply for permission to change or rebuild the use by preparing a false design drawing as the building area that can be changed or reconstructed is 3,172.77 square meters.

Defendant

B Around March 9, 2011, the F architect office located in the 602th Office of Silung-si, I had access to “J”, a government-run site related to building permission through the Internet, to the effect that the change of use and reconstruction area of the above land is 3,172.77 square meters, and that it would be changed to the storage of agricultural and fishery products and be reconstructed into an agricultural and fishery product warehouse of the building area of 2,998 square meters, and submitted a written application for permission to change the purpose of use to the effect that it would be reconstructed into an agricultural and fishery product warehouse of the building area of the 2,998 square meters, and submitted a false building layout drawing and design drawing file to the same purport as mentioned above, and obtained permission for change of use as

around March 21, 2011, Defendants filed an application for reconstruction with the same purport in the same manner at the same place, and obtained permission for reconstruction according to the purport of the application around March 30, 201.

Accordingly, the Defendants are the defendants.