A In October, 10, Defendant B was punished by a fine of 1,00,000 won, Defendant C was punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won, and Defendant D.

【Defendant D’s past record of crime was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on July 17, 2014 by obstructing business operations in the Daegu District Court’s resident settlement support, etc., and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 12, 2015 and is still under suspension of execution.

【Defendant A” is a field warden of the G High School D D High School (hereinafter “G High School D”) from May 2014 to February 2015, 2015, who has overall control over the construction work, such as the process management of the said construction work, the selection of subcontractors, and the employment of direct employees. Defendant D is a person who has overall control over the construction strike work of H as the managing director of the victim H H, while engaging in the work of employing a site warden and the payment of money.

In addition, Defendant C was awarded a subcontract for part of the G high school construction from Defendant A with the trade name of “I”, and Defendant B was a person who operates a steel laboratory under the trade name of “J”.

The victim company employed Defendant A as the site warden for the above G high school construction project on the ground of 1,346,370,497 of the total construction amount ordered by the Port Education Support Agency, and executed the construction work at one billion won under his/her responsibility, and the remaining profit was the remuneration of the site warden. The victim company entered into a contract with Defendant A for the execution of the responsibility of the site warden from May 2014 to February 2015.

1. Fraud - During the construction of the above G high school, Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant C, Defendant B, etc., by using the circumstance that the victim company did not specifically verify the current status of human resources invested at the site and would pay personnel expenses as claimed by the head of the field office, in collusion with Defendant C, Defendant B, etc., who did not work at the actual construction site as if he did the work, and even if having performed the work actually, he did not request personnel expenses by fraudulent means of claiming personnel

A. Defendant A and Defendant C-.