A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

Defendant

A from August 2006, a person working as the head of the business division team in charge of the purchase, sale, etc. of goods in the victim G (hereinafter “victim”) (hereinafter “victim”) who is a distributor of electronic equipment, such as computer and communication equipment, located in the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B is the representative director of the headquarters in the business division who is the manufacturer of electronic equipment, such as H computers and communication equipment, located in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

On November 2009, the injured company entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the I and the said company to be supplied with goods, such as web download sharing equipment and radio Internet telephone equipment, as a monopoly, and the Defendant A had them take charge of its duties.

(State) However, since November 2009, I supplied web plers, etc. to the damaged company and received the price, but failed to timely supply goods up to KRW 800,000 to the damaged company until July 201.

On the other hand, the injured company prohibits business employees from paying advance payment to the customer, except the customer who provides large enterprises or physical security.

Under the above circumstances, the defendant A, who was in charge of transactions with I, has a duty of care to not recover advance payments paid to I, or to not pay only the amount of goods corresponding to the goods actually supplied by I, and not pay advance payments to I, in order to prevent damage to the injured company due to the failure to be supplied with goods equivalent to advance payments.

Nevertheless, Defendant A proposed that Defendant A will arbitrarily support advance payment to Defendant B and transfer the price of goods that is more than the goods actually supplied to Defendant B. Defendant B could not supply the goods corresponding thereto to the victimized company even if it received advance payment from the victimized company. However, Defendant B was aware of the fact that it could not supply the goods corresponding thereto.