2. B

Attorney D in charge, E

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the defendants shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant B is the vice president of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), a nuclear power plant collaborative company, as a supplier and supplier. Defendant B is a person in charge of business management and fund management; Defendant A is a person in charge of F’s business management and fund management; Defendant A is a person in charge of F’s overall business of Korea hydroelectric Power and Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”).

1. Around March 25, 2011, the Defendants’ joint criminal conduct (the offering of bribe toG) entered into a technical service contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 649 million, which was ordered by the Hanwon H team, of KRW 69 million, and around March 29, 201, a technical service contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 690,80,000,000, ordered by the said H team was entered into with the said H, respectively, and around October 2010, the said HS team leader negotiated the conclusion of the said contract, including the permission of the estimate submitted by the F, and the Defendant A provided KRW 80,000,000,000 to G in return.

Accordingly, Defendant A reported that there is a need for approximately KRW 130 million to Defendant B with respect to the business related to Hanwon, such as the fact that the money should be given to Defendant B around March 201, and Defendant B withdrawn KRW 120 million from the new financial investment account he managed on April 5, 201 and gave it to Defendant A.

In addition, around May 201, Defendant A issued KRW 40 million to the above G at the J cafeteria, and delivered KRW 40 million to K on September 201, 201 when the supply and service was completed. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to perform the duties of an officer or employee of a market-based public corporation deemed as a public official.

The amount of KRW 80 million was provided.

2. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

A. A. Around June 24, 2011, the offering of bribe to M entered into five contracts related to the above NCO M, including entering into a purchase contract for “control cards, electronic circuit boards, etc.” equivalent to KRW 1772.7 million ordered by Hanwon N Team, etc.

On August 201, the Defendant received a report from 0, the head of F’s business 1 team, “M demands money.” On September 201, 201, the Defendant issued convenience amounting to KRW 20 million in relation to the above contracts and the supply contracts scheduled in the future, at the above N Team office working for M in Busan-gun P, Busan-gunn P, as well as the solicitation of giving 20 million won in relation to the above contracts. Accordingly, the Defendant granted 20 million won in relation to the duties of the officers and employees of market-type public enterprises deemed public officials.

B. The offering of bribe to R was conducted from September 17, 201 to October 9, 201, the offering of the bribe to R was 700 million won as ordered by the said NE head of the NE from September 17, 201 to the supply and installation of a " Qbine monitoring system" system.

around 2011, October, 2010, the Defendant issued KRW 15 million to R in return for providing convenience in relation to the conclusion and implementation of the above service contract to R in the passenger car of the above NFR, which is operating the Busan Shipping Daegu.

Accordingly, the defendant granted 15 million won to the duties of officers and employees of market-type public corporations who are deemed public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Each prosecutorial suspect examination protocol concerning the Defendants and G

1. Ten statements of statement;

1. Each investigation report (the filing, etc. of contracts between the F and N);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 133(1), 129, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Determination of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Consideration of Circumstances favorable to the Defendants among the reasons for sentencing)

When the development of nuclear power for the reason of sentencing is connected to an accident due to a defect or malfunction of some facilities, it is extremely difficult to repair or restore it, and it brings about the risk of permanent impossibility of recovery, even though it is extremely serious to the life and health of the people, the safety of the national land, and the descendants, and thus, the construction, operation, and management of power generation facilities shall not be thoroughly performed and it shall not be neglected.

Technical services and goods supplied to Korea-U.S. are very important core technologies and components for the safety of nuclear power generation, and there is a high risk that if the Defendants were to neglect the development and maintenance of technology and the quality maintenance of parts by giving a bribe to Korea-U.S. employees as stated in the instant crime, the Defendants’ crime is considerably serious.

However, in light of the fact that the defendants are divided into and reflected in the crime, the fact that the defendants appear to have offered a bribe passive upon request, the fact that there is no serious criminal record for the defendants, and the reasons for all the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in this case, the sentence is set like the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

the officer or employee is deemed to be a public official when he or she receives money or valuables in connection with his or her duties.