Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From February 2002 to July 31, 2012, the Defendant worked as the head of the logistics division in the Victim C Co., Ltd., and took overall control of the business of transporting the excessive product to the business office, agency, and distributor.

Although the Defendant, in accordance with the client’s order, has overall control over the business of delivering the products produced by the victim company to the logistics center, and there was a business duty to verify the distribution transport vehicle assigned and claim the appropriate transportation cost. However, from January 201 to July 2012, the Defendant made D to claim a tax invoice through E in addition to the transportation cost set as a monthly fixed amount in order to pay the transportation cost to D who is a shipping agent in violation of his/her business duty, thereby allowing D to obtain a total of KRW 11,680,000 to obtain the financial profit equivalent to the same amount and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer against G, D, F, and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to confirm the facts, a statement of reimbursement, a transport contract, and a report of investigation (Submission of details of D Account Transactions);

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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 of the provisional payment order does not have any previous conviction against the defendant; when the victim company entered into the first contract with D around the end of December 2004, the transportation cost was KRW 330,000 per month; however, the victim company did not increase the transportation cost once more than eight years, but did not continuously approve the defendant's appearance, resulting in the instant crime in order to preserve the actual cost, such as oil cost, etc.; and there are circumstances to consider the motive for committing the crime.