Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

The summary of the facts charged is a person who works as a business director of the victim “F” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government EB01 from June 2007 to February 29, 2012 and takes overall charge of business affairs, such as managing customers and contracting parties, while working as a business director of the victim “F” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B is a person who works as an employee of the victimized company from November 14, 201 to January 18, 201 and takes charge of the preparation and dispatch of documents.

The injured company, from March 2011 to March 201, promoted the conclusion of the supply contract of the "Isch Rexroth case", which is a computer case with the "H" company in charge of purchase of "P", which is a multinational company, and received orders from H on January 1, 2012 concerning 10 products.

Therefore, the Defendants, who are employees of the victimized Company, had a duty to make efforts to ensure that the victimized Company would normally supply the said product and continue the transaction with H.

Nevertheless, in violation of the above occupational duties, the Defendants conspired to enable the “StateJ”, the same kind of company as the victimized Company, to enter into a contract for delivery with the State H.H.

Accordingly, on January 31, 2012, Defendant A sent “the supply of the goods to the State H arbitrarily at the office of the victimized company.”

In addition, on January 18, 2012, Defendant K retired from the damaged company, and joined the J on January 25, 2012, and decided on February 6, 2012 that “L will continue the G project” to the “L”, a Chinese company that was requested by the victimized company, to produce the said case. This project shall proceed with the absolute secrecy. It sent an electronic message stating “F M will not communicate absolutely to F M.”

From February 10, 2012 to February 12, 2012, the Defendants continued to visit the “L” to the said “L, thereby excluding the victimized company by having the said case supplied by the StateJ, and thereafter, the StateJ made the said case supply transaction with H (State).

As a result, the Defendants acted in collusion with the Court (State).