[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of interference with business is acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

[Interference with Defendant A’s exercise of rights] From July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2002, the Defendant worked as the three Si Council members of the three E Si from July 1, 1998; from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 to the six Si Council members of the six Si Council; from July 1, 2014 to June 1, 2018, the Defendant worked as the 7 Si Council members of the seven Si Council from July 1, 2014 to June 2018.

Three lines of view were three lines of view.

The 6th E City Council has four standing committees, such as Council Steering Committees, Planning and Arbitration Committees, Construction and Transportation Committees, and Administrative Welfare Committees, and the F Corporation was affiliated agencies under the jurisdiction of E, and was in the position of being directly audited and audited by all standing committee members except the above Council Steering Committee.

From July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012, the Defendant was a member of the City Mayor/Do Vice-Speaker and the Planning and Arbitration Committee. From July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012, the Defendant was a member of the Administrative Welfare Committee from July 10, 2012 to June 30, 2014, and thus, he/she had the supervisory rights, such as proposing and submitting various items of agenda, such as F Corporation-related ordinances, voting, and administrative audit rights, as above, and was in a position to exercise considerable influence on the F Corporation's duties, such as giving disadvantages to the budget and projects of the F Corporation.

At the end of April 2012, the Defendant summoned the victim B, the president of the F Corporation, to the effect that he can exercise the above influence at the E City Council’s office located in G around the end of April 2012, the Defendant asked the victim to summon the victim B, who is the president of the F Corporation, to the effect that “the victim had been employed as a fixed-term employee in the E-Viewing water division until all children, and now play, so the F Corporation has become aware of the re-contract, so the victim would be employed as an employee by the F Corporation,” and the victim refused to “the ethm is difficult because it is employed by means of open competition because personnel regulations are strict unlike the example,” but around September 2012.