A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates the F in Mucompo-gu E in Masan-si, Changwon-si.

On the other hand, on September 11, 2006, the SPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “SPS”) entered into a contract (contract number S03E212000) for the supply of the “CLAS 1EBTS 1EBS AESS CRS”, which is part of the CLAS 1, 2, as a part of the PPS 1 and 2, located in the Busan Coast Guard Group (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea-UPS”).

A business entity that supplies the main components to Hanwon shall submit a quality assurance document, etc. issued by the supplier in accordance with the contract and the purchase specifications to the buyer when it supplies the main components to the buyer. As such, on October 2007, the three-way batteries subcontracted the manufacturing process of the RACK (referring to the storage cell metal frame, distribution box frame, hereinafter referred to as the “RACK”) among the above parts to F, and requested the supplier to deliver a quality assurance document for steel as a raw material at the time of delivery of the parts.

However, according to the purchase specifications of Korea-U.S., the Defendant, at around that time, prepared ASM (ASM) A36 specifications with respect to steel materials to be used for the manufacture of Korea-U.S.K, but could not seek a product of domestic steel products with the relevant specifications, and could not obtain a subcontract agreement, and could not obtain a product of domestic steel products with the relevant specifications. However, the Defendant would seek a sexual statement (quality guarantee document) stating as if the material was equipped with the specifications. It was proposed that “The submission of this sexual statement would not be any problem even if the materials were supplied by creating the Korea-U.K with other specifications.”

Accordingly, the Defendant produced and supplied the instant RACK with steel not equipped with ASM A36 specifications, and submitted it to the SaC batteries to receive the price of supply from the SaC batteries as if the quality assurance documents for raw materials were issued normally, and made such proposals.