20 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

From March 1996 to November 2005, the Defendant served as the director of C’s team, the vice-director, and the head of C’s team. From November 2005 to December 2007, the Defendant served as the head office D’s head office’s industrial facility automation business center. From March 2008 to December 2007, the Defendant served as the head office of C’s automation business center. From October 201, the Defendant served as the vice-president of C’s personal affairs division from around C’s personal affairs division.

E enters into a contract with C on December 2003 for the supply of Field Products, and is supplied by C with a brand meter and exclusively supplies it to the domestic F construction site.

On July 20, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 260 million from the Defendant’s new bank account (Account Number: I) with an illegal solicitation that “C products are continuously supplied with monopolys continuously, and the unit price of supply varies to low prices” from the E’s representative H in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and received KRW 200 million from the Defendant’s new bank account (Account Number: I).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on financial transactions;

1. Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] The grounds for the sentencing of the punishment of the crime of breach of trust in the area of mitigation [10 million won or more] [1.6 months or more] [1.6 months to 3 years] [1.3 years] [the person who requested the execution of affairs]] Defendant received money from the delivery company with illegal solicitation in a superior position, and the amount is 260 million won or more, and it is inevitable to impose penalty corresponding thereto.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's wife is sought from the company to which the defendant belongs, the fact that the defendant recognized the mistake and reflects it, and the fact that the defendant seems to have lived faithfully without the penalty power before the crime of this case is committed.

The main circumstances mentioned above and the motive and motive of the instant crime.