The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. The summary of the facts charged was from June 16, 2006 to June 16, 2006, Defendant A received the application for electricity use as an employee of the F Team of the branch office affiliated with the E Seoul Headquarters.

Defendant

B is the representative director of G corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business.

Defendant

A around December 16, 2006, the Defendant informed of bid information, such as the expected amount of unit price contract construction, participation eligibility requirements, etc., under the supervision of the E Seoul Headquarters, and notified the bid information in advance, and received KRW 1,000,000 from B in return, around February 16, 2007.

In addition, the Defendant received total of KRW 10,500,000 from B over ten times as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table from around the above time to March 3, 2011.

As a result, the defendant acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation by a person who administers another's business.

B. Around February 5, 2008, Defendant B issued KRW 1,000,000 to A in total six times from the above time to March 3, 201, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, including the expected amount of unit price contract construction works, participation eligibility requirements, etc. under the supervision of the E Seoul Headquarters, as above, in return for receiving bid information, including the expected amount of unit price contract construction works, participation eligibility requirements, etc.

As a result, the defendant made an illegal solicitation and provided property to the person who administers another's business.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserts that the acquisition or delivery of property as stated in the facts charged is true, but they are only assistance to Defendant B as a pro-friendly Gu, and they do not acquire or deliver the property in return for an illegal solicitation.

B. The term “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require that it constitutes the content of occupational breach of trust, and is sufficient to determine that it goes against social rules or the principle of good faith.