Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person in charge of home shopping transactions, etc. of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), a manufacturer or seller of electric products, etc., and Defendant B is a person who has operated H with the father of the above E.

1. On November 19, 2012, at the K office operated by the victim J in Busan, Busan, the Defendants made a false statement to the said victim that “The profits on the part of the E are too small. In order to continue the transaction, the Defendants would give back money to the president of the E, Japanese director, L director, and home shopping MD, etc., who sell subordinate sports, and calculated KRW 11,000 per an emergency day.”

However, in fact, the Defendants were willing to receive back money from the victim and bring them into their own interest. At the time, K and E had already been tradeed, and there was no need to give back money as above. On the other hand, there was no demand for the back money through Defendant B with the Home shopping Ma, the president of the above E, and the director of L, etc. who entered into the above side sales contract with E.

Nevertheless, in collusion, the Defendants, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained KRW 29,360,00,000 from the victim on December 4, 2012, KRW 20,310,000 on December 17, 2012, KRW 120,000 on December 27, 2012, KRW 120,000,000 on January 10, 201, KRW 10,000 on January 18, 2013, KRW 29,360 on January 18, 201.

2. Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust, while working as an agent for the above E (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) and deemed that L, a director of the victimized company, would expand its business by delivering a new product, etc. to home shopping, in addition to the sale of the existing electrical product, and received the consent from the above L, thereby attempting to acquire the Defendants’ private interest by using the fact that the companies of the victimized company, such as the above L, did not properly grasp the transaction circumstances.

Therefore, the Defendants are the defendants.