A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 1, 2010, the Defendant purchased the F Forest, etc. in D, E, and Daejeon, and agreed to distribute profits from the purchase of the forest, etc. in the way of developing the forest, etc. as the electric source housing site and distributing profits therefrom. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant assumed office as the representative director of G around October 1, 2010, and as the representative director, overall management of G’s business was performed.

1. On September 24, 2010, H-related occupational breach of trust entered into a design service contract with H setting the service cost of KRW 28,000,00 with respect to the authorization, permission, and preparation of design drawings, etc. for electric housing complex related to the above F Forest, etc. owned by H and G as KRW 42,432,60, which is the total amount of the service cost for design services and related additional services under the design service contract from September 24, 2010 to July 14, 201.

On the other hand, the Defendant concluded a design service contract with H and service cost of KRW 15,000,000 on the preparation of books for authorization of housing complex for three parcels, Cheongju-si, I, and three parcels of housing complex, which the Defendant personally promoted. However, the Defendant did not pay the remainder by paying only KRW 10,000,000 at the design service cost.

Around December 2011, the Defendant received a request from G offices located on the fifth floor of the Daejeon-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, to the effect that, in addition to the design service cost received from G, there was a design service cost to be paid in addition to the design service cost, the Defendant paid to H. In the event that the service cost to be paid individually to H was not settled.

However, the Defendant, as the representative director of G, received the service cost related to G from H, shall closely examine whether the service cost is the service cost to be paid according to the contract concluded through appropriate procedures, whether the service cost was received due to the service cost, whether the service cost was the result under the contract, and whether the service cost to be paid is appropriate in light of the outcome.