When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant, from September 2, 2013 to June 2014, worked as the head of the site office affiliated with the victim MEXS Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., E plant construction site in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and had duties to input human resources and equipment in the above construction site to the site and to manage construction work.

Nevertheless, around November 2013, upon receiving a request from D to install retaining walls on the side of the factory at the construction site of the above construction site, the Defendant: (a) stated that “MEX comprehensive construction works will incur approximately KRW 12 million to the construction cost, but if the construction cost is paid to B, it would employ trees and execute construction works to install retaining walls; (b) requested installation of retaining walls from D; (c) around December 2013, the Defendant installed retaining walls not included in construction contracts with E using trees and equipment invested in the new construction site of the above factory; and (d) received KRW 4.4 million from E corporation to a new bank account in the F name on February 14, 2014 as the construction cost for installing retaining walls.

As a result, the defendant acquired 4.4 million won proprietary benefits in violation of occupational duties, and caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the suspect's interrogation records on the defendant (including the statement of G, H, and D);

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. D's written confirmation;

1. Application of the standard contract for private construction works, contract modification contract for construction works, deposit certificate, tax invoice, and written request Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the first offender, the degree of violation of duties is weak, and the Defendant paid personnel expenses and equipment expenses from the money received by the Defendant.