Defendants not guilty

1. The facts charged against Defendant A is from February 12, 2010 to the same year.

7.1. The same year until the date;

5. A person who has been in charge of the installation of CCTV for crime prevention and the establishment of a situation room in the Hanam City of Q of the Republic of Korea Self-Governing Administration Bureau by the end of 28.28. A person who is in charge of the establishment of CCTV for crime prevention in the Hanam City of the Republic of Korea, Defendant B is the (ju) R representative director, Defendant C is the representative director, Defendant E and Defendant D

) A former employee of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”). A project to install CCTV for the purpose of crime prevention (hereinafter referred to as “the instant project”) around January 201, 201.

On January 8, 2010, under the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support, CCTV for crime prevention was designated to purchase through restricted competition among small and medium enterprise proprietors pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages. The Hanam City decided to select the successful bidder of the instant project through negotiations. On February 4, 2010, the Hanam City concluded a design service contract for the instant project with the Republic of Korea. On February 12, 2010, the Defendant A was issued as a vicarious agent of QU division. On March 10, 2010, the Hanam City held an interim report meeting related to the installation of CCTV for the instant project, and the Defendant A demanded to prepare and submit a written request for proposal related to the instant project.

On the other hand, Defendant B, C, E, and D agreed to jointly carry out the instant project in the name of T, and Defendant B, who had been well aware of the public officials of the Hanam-si while being entrusted with the project ordered in the name of T, agreed to take exclusive charge of the business activities for the Hanam-si, and their introduction to the effect that Defendant E, D, who was the full-time officer of the instant project, was able to assist T to take charge of the instant project while explaining T. However, the above V.