1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A has overall control over the selection and management of direct stores at the sales division team of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Company D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Defendant B performed the duties of selecting and managing discount points at the sales division team of D's business department department, while performing the duties of selecting and managing discount points at the sales division team of D's business department.

D When operating a direct store, the occupant of the D wanted to move the commercial zone to a high-quality store in comparison with the discount store and to operate a more direct store than the discount store because the commercial zone is high-quality and the employment of the employees can be autonomously.

1. The defendant A is an employee of the business division of D who fairly operates the direct management store, and deals with the business affairs in the selection of the shop owner and the movement and management of the store. In this regard, the defendant A has a duty not to receive property in exchange for an illegal request from the shop owner.

Nevertheless, around April 21, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 500,000,000 in total nine times in total under the name, such as the statement in attached Table 1, from around September 2017 to around September 2017, from E, which is a difficult point of view in the parking lot adjacent to D's difficult point of view, to the effect that "I see various conveniences in the process of moving and transferring the store, and I see the convenience of store management in the future."

2. Defendant B’s employees belonging to the business division of D perform their duties fairly in selecting the main points of operating discount points and direct management points, and selling and managing stores, and in this regard, there are duties that do not receive goods from the main points of occupation upon illegal solicitation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around March 2016, did not err in the purport that “the Defendant shall conduct an audit by leaving the store to move” from E, a difficult point of view of D around March 2016, and see convenience in the future store management.”