Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who works in the (State) special sales department from March 2005 to December 2009, and has been engaged in the work of calculating the contract price, construction contract, construction site management and construction cost, and E is a person who operates the F Company, a subcontractor with D construction from around March 2001.

1. Around September 2008, the Defendant requested the Defendant to sell the above materials to E by selling the above floor materials through E and selling them to the borrowed account in order to prevent the Defendant from becoming aware of the sales proceeds by selling them to the borrowed account, while he received the floor materials for the said company for the purpose of the said company after completion of construction at the warehouse of the G company, which is a cooperation company of the F company, the competitor of the F company, and the floor materials owned by the G company.

Thus, E, at the above temporary closure, brought a total of 5.5 million won in total at the floor area of 98 square meters, which is owned by the injured company, in the warehouse of the above G company, sold 5.5 million won to the name in the non-resident in Busan area. On September 1, 2008, around September 2008, E transferred 5 million won in the sales amount to the national bank account (Account Number I) with the defendant's name in this mother H, designated by the defendant, and the remaining 50 million won in the remaining 5.5 million won in the national bank account (Account Number K) under the name of the mother H (J) of the defendant's name designated by the defendant on November 20, 208.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with E, has arbitrarily sold and embezzled the floor space of the resting area of KRW 5.5 million, which is the market price owned by the victimized company.

2. Occupational breach of trust and fraud Defendant had occupational duties, after reviewing whether the FF company's construction costs claimed to the victim (owner)D are adequate, to calculate and report the unit cost of supply to the victimized company.

Nevertheless, on November 2008, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties and caused E to claim construction costs from the damaged company by appropriating up to the portion in which E has not been actually executed.