A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

C is the actual operator of H(hereinafter referred to as “H”) who operates private museums.

Defendant

A is the representative director of the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "I") who manufactures and sells LED lighting.

Defendant

B is an operating director of I.

Defendant

C and B used the fact that the victim Ama Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim Co., Ltd.") paid the price to the public corporation and paid the price to the public corporation in installments by the installing company “ECO fund contract” when replacing the existing lighting lighting lighting with ED lighting, etc., the victim A and B, on February 2014, by using the fact that I, at a museum operated by H, was carrying out the installation of ED lighting, etc., the victim company was arrested and supplied only some of ED lighting, etc., and the remaining funds were raised at will by Defendant C to use them.

Defendant

A received a report on the above contents from Defendant B around that time, and accepted it.

As a result, Defendant C and B entered into a contract for the supply and installation of goods at the H museum located in the jurisdiction of the Jeju-si on February 6, 2014 and agreed to pay KRW 72,092,268,268, including construction cost and interest, to pay KRW 2,02,563 each month from February 25, 2014 to January 25, 2017 to KRW 36 months in installments on the museum operated by H.

However, in fact, the Defendants did not intend to carry out the construction work such as ESD lighting according to the terms of the above contract.

As above, the Defendants conspired to induce K, who is an employee of the victim company, and accordingly, received 60,58,000 won, including KRW 30,000,000, around March 27, 2014, and KRW 30,588,000, around April 10, 2014, from the victim company, in total, from the victim company’s bank account under the name of the contract price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants A and B, respectively.