Defendant

A In October, Defendant B is punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 8 million, and Defendant D.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A, a representative director of R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), who is a manufacturer of ready-mixed, has been actually managing the overall business of the instant company.

R is a company belonging to the SDR, and the government-funded ready-mixed, which is put into a construction project ordered by a government office such as a local government, is being allocated a quantity prior to the commencement of the construction project through the Public Procurement Service and the above combination, and at the request of the contractor, the construction contractor issues a supply certificate to the construction site and deliver it to the contractor, and submit a request for inspection and examination to the contractor as much as the supplied quantity through the national flag yard system, and then the contractor has received payment from the contractor through the Public Procurement Service and the above combination.

However, if the construction company fails to use the whole quantity of the government-funded ready-mixed in advance during the construction period, it shall undergo a procedure to modify the design and construction process, etc. for the remaining part through consultation with the ordering agency. However, if the construction company requests the defendant to issue the delivery document falsely as if the whole amount of the ready-mixed was supplied according to the time and quantity planned in the design document on the ground that the total construction cost is reduced when the design is modified on the ground that the whole amount of the construction cost is reduced, etc., the defendant also conspired to receive the delivery price by submitting it to the ordering agency, while considering the convenience of the construction company, and if the construction company issues the false delivery document, it is expected that the contractor will receive the delivery price in excess of the actual quantity of the supply price.

Accordingly, in March 2015, the Defendant: (a) ordered a victim U office at the R office located in T when permanent residence on March 2015; and (b) in relation to the “Wing Corporation” that had been in progress around March 2015 by V, the fact is less than 13 U.S. M.M. (hereinafter “Wing Corporation”) assigned during the construction process.