Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the above sentence against Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On February 19, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for the crime of occupational breach of trust at the Incheon District Court on February 19, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 27, 2016. Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the crime of occupational breach of trust at the Incheon District Court on February 19, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A was the actual representative director of the F, and Defendant B was the former auditor of the said company, who served as the responsible researcher of G.

On June 208, at a restaurant where the trade name near the Seogalian department store located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon is unknown, the Defendants attempted to operate a semiconductor manufacturer of semiconductor called "(State)F" to the victim H. Since profits have occurred after three months, it is inevitable for the Company to make a profit more than the value of the shares. As such, if the Company invests KRW 300 million in the company, it will pay profits through the settlement of accounts twice a year from the time of the initial sales, and it will be paid within three months at the time of the request for the return of the investment amount. The Company will be jointly and severally liable for joint and several sureties.” The Company prepared a debt repayment contract and a notarial deed of business investment in the same purport as of August 13, 2008, and received KRW 300 million from the victim to the account of the Defendant B bank on August 14, 2008.

However, the I technology, which had been developed by the said company established on May 2, 2008, was supplied to the Hashesium for the relationship not being developed and commercialized, and it was not a situation where profit would occur after three months from the date of the instant case, so it is unclear that there would be a high value of the shares of the said company, and even if there was no resolution of the board of directors, etc. regarding the joint and several sureties of the said company, the Defendants received 300 million won per share of the said company as above from the victim, which was calculated as 10,000 won per share under the pretext of investment.