However, a punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is the representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), which produces heat-based polyopaly Ureth, TPU raw materials, etc., and Defendant B is a person who worked as the vice president from around 2004 to December 2012.

Defendant

A on March 28, 2011, with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”), H (hereinafter referred to as “H”), and I (hereinafter referred to as “I”), agreed to establish and operate the J (hereinafter referred to as “damage Joint Venture”) which is a joint venture producer of TPPU film in China. Defendant B, who is appointed as the representative director of the joint venture, shall take overall charge of its duties and take overall charge of its duties, and with respect to the shares of the joint venture, F shall hold 25.5%, G 25.5%, H 25%, and H 24%, respectively.

Accordingly, Defendant B, as the representative director of the damage joint venture company, was in charge of the request for the manufacture and supply of TPU film production machine (T-O) TPP film production machine (hereinafter “the machinery of this case”), which is essential for the business of the damage joint venture company. In such a case, Defendant B selected the manufacturer of the machinery of this case from the manufacturer of the machinery of this case to the manufacturer of the machinery of this case on the basis of a estimate, selected the optimal manufacturer and requested the manufacture by comparing the unit price, etc. of the machinery of this case from the manufacturer of the machinery of this case to the manufacturer of the machinery of this case, and had a duty of care to avoid damage to the victim company during the contract process.

Nevertheless, around April 201, Defendant B entered into a contract with Defendant A to pay the price in the process of selecting the manufacturer of the instant machinery, and the manufacturer of the machinery claims the price to the damaged joint venture. Since then, Defendant B received the amount of money equivalent to the contract price that the Defendants paid out from the manufacturer of the machinery from the machinery.