However, with respect to Defendant A and C, respectively from the date when the above judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who is in office as the executive chairperson of Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as “T”) established from November 2010 to February 2016 for the purpose of holding S and other video culture development projects, and has been in general control over the affairs such as holding S, personnel affairs, and funding, with the delegation of the T Director.

Defendant

C is a person who, while holding office as the secretary general from August 2005 to February 2, 2013, has been in general control over the affairs of the secretariat, such as organization, personnel affairs, and funding, by assisting the executive chairperson.

Defendant

B is a person who has been in office as the Director General from February 2, 2013 to the present date and has been responsible for the affairs of the Secretariat, such as organization, personnel affairs, and revenue and expenditure of funds.

Defendant

D is a person who from February 2007 to March 2007, has been in office as the chairperson of Trd Execution.

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s prior fact was conducted from October 201 in T, 201 to discuss a project plan by promoting joint projects for film screening channels with U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) from around October 201 to Scriptive work, etc., and negotiations on the specific operational plan were conducted, and it was difficult to secure funds for the provision of content and support of production, thereby suspending the above project around early 2014.

Thus, U’s director V did not enter into a formal contract for the channel joint business between T and U, and did not actually run the business in relation to the above business, and even though he was well aware of the fact that T had no legal responsibility for compensating for U’s losses, he continued to demand the Defendants to compensate for U’s losses arising from the business without labor.

Accordingly, even though the Defendants were well aware of the existence of any legal responsibility for compensating for U’s losses in T as above, the Defendants concluded a mediation contract as if U had been engaged in Scam and concluded a false supporting commission with U.S.