A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant has been working as the head of the building B in Gyeyang-si from April 2015 to February 2017, and the victim D, Inc. in subparagraph (C), and has been engaged in the business of taking charge of transactions with the Japanese company E and the domestic sales of the products supplied by E.

Since the victim company entered into a domestic monopoly sales agency contract with E company, the defendant has a duty to accurately notify the victim company of the transaction counterpart, transaction terms, etc. so that it can be sold normally in connection with the domestic sales of E company's products supplied by E company and to have the victim company enter into a sales contract at reasonable prices.

Nevertheless, around April 2016, the Defendant proposed that “The parts to be manufactured in E should be supplied from D to F, and if the orderer would be supplied at a higher price to the orderer, then the latter would be divided.” The above G approved the Defendant’s proposal.

1. On June 2016, the Defendant in breach of occupational duty in violation of the above occupational duties, and on June 2016, the Defendant reported to H, the representative director of the victim company, “I would have received from a person in charge of I purchase a false report that “I would supply 400 products and 400 samples of K products to L, an I collaborative company, free of charge, the I collaborative company,” and let the victim company deliver 800 products to F free of charge, and F would have the 800 products of this case supplied to F to L, thereby having the Defendant and G gain pecuniary advantage of 3,200,000 won per unit and causing property damage equivalent to the amount of the victim company.”

2. On July 2016, the Defendant in breach of trust, around July 2016, in breach of his/her occupational duty, requested the supply of N Nos. n, an electronic device produced by E from M, in violation of the above occupational duty, and H, the representative director of the victim company, “I, from P, 3,000 parts of Ns. P, an I cooperation company.