Residential Ulsan-gu Odong

【Special Metropolitan City, Chang-gun 00

2. ○○○ (*****************) and Company Council members

Head of Busan District Office 00 0

Busan District Prosecutor ○○○

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Lee Dong-chul (for the defendant Lee ○○)

From August 2006 to December 15, 2008, Defendant New 00 worked as the director of the headquarters 000 main power plant of the 2nd power plant of the 2nd nuclear power company of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "victim company") and was in charge of the maintenance and repair of the empty valves, etc., and since 2008, Defendant New 00 was in charge of the purchase business. Defendant 00 was an employee of the 000 corporation, who is in charge of the maintenance and repair of all kinds of power plants, and is in charge of the maintenance and repair of the above power plant facilities from January 25, 2005 to December 15, 2008. Yellow 0 is the representative of the 00○○○○○○○, Busan, who is in charge of the supply of machinery, etc. used by the nuclear power plant.

Recognizing that Defendant New ○○ will be awarded a successful bid in 000 with an open valves supply contract ordered by the mechanical team as a competent person, the Defendants and Yellow ○○○, with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant New ○○ will be awarded a successful bid in the said maintenance shop without any packing prior to 2006, carried out the main parts of the open valves operation engine without permission from the said 000 factory, and cut off the melting parts of the operation engine, cut off the melting, washing, painting, and supply them in a state that is not completed after assembling without any external purchase items such as sping, etc. in the said maintenance shop, the Defendants and Yellow ○ intended to acquire the supply price from the victim company of the goods in a state that has been completed by the final assembling with the outer purchase items, such as sping in storage at the said maintenance shop.

1. Defendant - On December 208, 2008, the above 00 00 00 00 00 0 06 7010 ) Defendant 2 was released from the above 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 202 3 1 3 1 202 1 3 202 3 1 202 3 1 202 3 1 202 3 1 202 3 1 202 3 2

In collusion with the Yellow ○○○, the Defendants deceptioned the victim company as such, thereby deceiving the victim company by receiving KRW 1.27 billion from the victim company as price for supply, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Defendant NewO - On June 20, 2009, the victim company issued a public notice of tender to the victim company around March 3, 2009: (a) low pressure pressure vessels ordered by the above power plant mechanical team; (b) low pressure vessels; and (c) low pressure valves valves valves vessels; and (d) the said bid was awarded to ○○○○○ on May 4, 2009.

Defendant 0: (1) around 11, 209, 000 ○○○○○○○ KMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMY

1. Entry of the defendant in the first trial record of the trial;

1. Some statements among the suspect interrogation records on Defendant ○○, which are prepared by the prosecution;

1. Each statement written by the prosecutor about ○○○○○, Kim○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Kim○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○ (one and two times) of the prosecution preparation of the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the statement concerning ○○○○ in the preparation of the prosecution;

1. 검찰 작성의 각 수사보고[피내사 회사인 ○○○○○ 퇴직자의 양심선언서 등 / 인터넷 검색자료 첨부 보고 / ○○○○○의 사업자 등록번호 확인 보고 / 압수수색검증영장 집행보고 - 2 / 압수수색검증영장 집행보고 - 3 / 압수수색검증영장 집행보고 4(입찰담합) / 고리원자력발전소 등 직원배치표 첨부보고 / 밸브작동기 납품 관련, 견적서, 계약서 사본 첨부 / 거래명세표 첨부 - 밸브작동기 케이스 관련 / 거래내역서 첨부 - 밸브류, 스프링, 필터 관련 | 거래내역서 첨부 - 밸브류(2) / 입찰담합 의혹 및 밸브작동기 관련 입찰서류 첨부 | 00000의 고리 2발전 부품 반출 및 납품대비 내역 / 신○○, 박○○ 명의 계좌의 '현금입금' 거래 확인보고 / 고리2발 기계팀 담당자 '신00의 금전수수 거래내역 정리보고 / 인사기록 카드 첨부]의 각 기재(첨부 서류 포함)

피고인 이ㅇㅇ 및 그 변호인의 주장에 대한 판단

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel found that the above Defendant assembled one and one dump valve block, etc. entering a low voltage-sacker block, such as the facts stated in the crime No. 1 in its judgment upon the request of ○○ and Y○○○, but the above Defendant did not know that new and yellow ○ conspired with the above parts and other parts taken out from the 2nd power plant of the 000 headquarters, and did not know that he would create and supply an empty valves, and it did not know that there was any such delivery case as mentioned above, since he did not participate in the delivery process at all. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent for the above crime.

2. In full view of the entire records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized:

A. On July 1983, 1983, the above defendant was employed as a commercial source to ○○○ Co., Ltd. on March 6, 1985, and was employed as a regular employee on March 6, 1985. From June 16, 2003 to December 15, 2008, the above defendant worked at ○○○○○ Head Office No. 2 plant.

B. The ○○○○○○, the representative of the ○○○○○○○, was a kind of relationship, such as visiting the said Defendant’s shop at two or three times a week to take charge of the said power plant as an employee of the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, by visiting the said shop at two or more times a week. The said Defendant, upon receipt of the instructions from NewOO, put the used parts, etc. stored in the said shop at the instant power plant maintenance shop, which would be used for the crime set forth in Article 1 of the judgment, on a truck carrying out of the said 000 factory. While the parts kept for the development, etc. of the supplier’s technological capabilities may be taken out at the said maintenance shop, the parts carried out should be brought back to the said maintenance shop.

D. On November 2008, the above Defendant: (a) visited the above 00, yellow 00, and GabO’s request on November 1, 2008, and visited the above 000 factory over two occasions on a weekend, using a weekend, and directly assembled one unit of Nbrid block and one dump valve block; (b) directed ○○○○○○○ employees of the assembly method of an open valves; (c) on the other hand, the shape of the parts carried out at the above power plant was changed or impossible. Since it is difficult for the above Defendant to have worked at the above 1st maintenance shop, it was complicated and there was no employee who can assemble it at all at all at the time.

E. While there are high-tech assembly and decomposition equipment on empty valves in the above maintenance shop, the above OOO factory did not have any particular equipment to process the above work, and in particular, it was impossible to assemble finished products because there was no machine to assemble sprinking.

3. Determination

A. In the case of co-offenders who act in collusion with more than two persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is sufficient if there is an implied communication with each other on the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly, and even if there was no general conspiracy, if there was a combination of doctors among several persons, the conspiracy is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do3154, Mar. 8, 1994).

B. In light of the following circumstances inferred by the above facts, i.e., ① the above defendant's career and work period at the above ○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., it appears that the above defendant was aware of the fact that he was awarded a successful contract for the supply contract as stated in the judgment ( contrary to the assertion in this court, the above defendant stated that he was aware of the fact that 3 empty valves were manufactured by winning a contract for the supply of 000 supply (Evidence No. 3062 pages of the evidence record) and ② the above defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ factory was not equipped with a properly equipped with the assembly facilities of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○ factory, and that it would have been very exceptional for the above defendant to directly assemble the parts in the process of the above assembly. ③ Even if the above defendant did not have been aware of the fact that the above defendant's delivery of the parts was made by means of the above 000th of the new storage.

C. Therefore, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit, and it is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the maximum of statutory penalty for each of the crimes of Articles 1 and 2 of the same Act shall be 15 years of imprisonment prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant New ○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in Article 3 of the Judgment with the largest punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant ○○: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “contributive circumstances”)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 00: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

The reason for sentencing is that each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant New ○, who works in the second power plant of 000 headquarters 2, the victim company, led with the supplier, the supplier, and the completed new goods that had been supplied with unsatisfying devices made by using used used parts and used parts without permission from the above power plant, and acquired the price of supply from the victim company as if they were supplied. The victim company did not merely cause property damage but rather constitutes a serious crime that causes serious doubts to the safety of the people and the safety of nuclear power plants directly connected with the national security and the national security of nuclear power plants. Thus, the Defendants’ criminal liability is heavy.

We examine the Defendants individually.

1. The case of Defendant New ○○ is the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among each crimes on which the sentencing guidelines are set, and the criteria for handling multiple crimes under the sentencing guidelines are applied, and the third crimes with the largest sentencing criteria are the basic crimes, and the method of treating the same concurrent crimes shall be applied.

[Scope of Punishment by Law] Imprisonment of three to 45 years

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime, Systemal Fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than five billion won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] - In case of an aggravated element: A person who has led or led to the commission of fraud;

- The factors of mitigation have been considerably damaged;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area, Four years of imprisonment to Seven years of age

[General Convicts] - Reductions: Serious reflector or no record of criminal punishment;

[Determination of Sentence] Three years of imprisonment

Although Defendant ○○ was in charge of affairs such as the purchase of products by a nuclear power plant, which is a national key facility, he was aware of the fact that it was a lawsuit, and rather, it was not easy to supervise the supply procedure due to the complexity and difficulty of the components of an empty valves motive, and due to the indicability, he led each of the crimes of this case and received a large amount of distribution from ○○○. As such, the character, conduct and nature of the crime are very poor, it is necessary to strictly punish the above Defendant

However, most of the property losses suffered by the victim company due to each of the crimes of this case by the above defendant were recovered, the escape of the above defendant after the commencement of the investigation into the defendant's own, but after the escape of the defendant, he voluntarily surrendered to the prosecution, the defendant was involved in the investigation. The above defendant's mistake is divided into his own mistake, and there is no previous conviction against the above defendant. Considering the above defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the above defendant's age, character and behavior, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by escaping from

2. Defendant Lee ○○

[Scope of Penalty in Law] One year and six months from one year to seven years (in case of discretionary mitigation), [Determination of a sentence] Fraud, organized fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Convicts] - Reductions: In the case of simple participation and recovery of significant damage (the scope of recommendations for special adjustment), Reductions, one year to five years of imprisonment

[Scope of the revised Recommendations] Imprisonment of one year and six months to five years;

[Suspension of Execution] The main reason for affirmative participation: Simple participation and substantial damage recovery;

Positive reasons: There is no criminal record of suspended execution or more.

- Reasons for negative general participation: No serious reflection;

[Decision of Sentence] Defendant Lee ○-○, a two-year suspended sentence for one year and six months, was an expert in assembly of an open valves motive, and was involved in the first crime as indicated in the judgment by using the technology, and denying the crime from the prosecution to this court constitutes an unfavorable condition against the above Defendant.

However, the above defendant's above crime was recovered most of the property damage which is presumed to have suffered by the victim company, the defendant's simple participation in the above crime was committed, and the defendant did not have any criminal record heavier than the fine, etc. shall be considered as favorable to the above defendant. Considering the above defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances, including the above defendant's age and character, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judges Min Il-Gyeong

3,835,00 won.

2) High pressure uses name mixed with name without distinguishing drum and hys, and estimate price per unit is 49,813,000 won.

3) A stable installed in a valve operation motor, and estimated price per unit is 61,002,000 won.

(iv)the function of both high pressure and low pressure use and operation of valves in connection with the sorano-de valves and operation of valves, and estimate for each outline;

A. 72,797,00 won

5) The function of regulating flow for the operation of valves is 89,095,000 won for each estimate.

(vi)a core part of the adjustment of the volume of voltage pursuant to electrical signals, where domestic production is not possible and less pressure valves operation motors are excluded.

Use in the cold pressure valve operation motors, high pressure valves operation motors, high pressure valves operation motors, high pressure valve operation motors, and the estimated price per opening is KRW 9,800,000.

7) Items which are not domestically produced, estimated for each unit of less than 2,500,000 won.

8) Items that require high-level carbon and durability and that need not be produced domestically, for estimated prices per unit are 5,500,000 won.

19) A device installed at a water pressure valve to dump it is impossible to produce in Korea, and estimate per unit is 10,000,000

2. Initials