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

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

Defendant

B From January 2, 2016 to July 2017, 2017, the victim C was the head of the field of D business located in Cheongbuk-do, the victim C, and the defendant A served as the head of the victim’s D business site from August 2, 2016 to June 2017.

The Defendants submitted the written confirmation of the labor details by each worker prepared by Defendant B to the victim company, using the fact that the workers received wages according to the number of working days as indicated in the written confirmation of the labor details, prepared a written confirmation of labor details and claimed wages as if the workers did not actually work, and the victim company conspired to use the wages paid by the victim company to return the wages paid from the number to the account of Defendant A in excess of the number of working days.

Defendant

B around October 4, 2016, around the above D business site, Defendant A submitted to the victim company a written confirmation of labor details indicating that he/she had worked even though he/she did not actually work, and received 2.60,000 won of wages from October 4, 2016 to the E bank account (F) in the name of Defendant A in the same manner from that time until February 9, 2017, and received delivery of 14,215,000 won in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police to G, H and I;

1. The application of the law of the police statement to J (including the part concerning the testimony of the J among the protocol of suspect interrogation against the accused);

1. Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act include the following circumstances and the defendants’ age, character and conduct, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.