The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who serves as the director of the management office of apartment B in South-gu.

The defendant worked as the above apartment management complaint and was in charge of bidding for the service of the above apartment and the selection of cleaning service company. During this process, the defendant sent C's "entrusted, cost, and cleaning estimate" to three times through around February 25, 2015, around March 9, 2015, around March 10, 2015, and around March 21, 2015, the defendant sent C's capital, business performance, technical personnel, and the bid notice meeting the qualification for participation in the facilities and equipment owned by D and announced the same contents as D's notice sent around March 26, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of bidding.

2. We examine the judgment, and the burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor. The conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conclude that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the association constructed the apartment of this case entrusted the management, guard, cleaning, and cleaning of the apartment of this case to the (State)C around September 2014, the defendant, who is a staff member of C, concluded the apartment of this case with the warden of this case from around that time to February 9, 2015, the tenant's representative of the apartment of this case and the tenant's representative of the housing management council related to the housing of this case, and it should not be concluded with the housing management council (C).