2012 J. 3533 Ga. Forgery of private documents

(b) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.B

Promotion (Public Prosecution) and Extraordinary (Public Trial)

Law Firm C (for Defendant A)

Attorney in charge D

Law Firm E (Defendant B)

Attorney F in charge

February 7, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and a half years, and by imprisonment for a period of two years. KRW 200 million shall be collected from Defendant B.

Criminal History Office

1. Defendant A

(a) Forgery of private documents or uttering of private documents;

The Defendant is the vice head of the Energy Business Headquarters of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) until February 2012, the Defendant is a person who was in exclusive charge of the electricity generation business sector of G, the total amount of KRW 22.1 billion, such as the supply contract for the supply contract for the nuclear power plant facilities of G, the total amount of KRW 9,10,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and H was working as the head of the Energy Business Headquarters of the above G, by October 25, 2012.

G around July 2010, in order to establish the Energy Business Headquarters and expand its business to the areas of nuclear power and thermal power generation, and order the contract at the thermal power plant, the G has been registered as a qualified company on the side of the thermal power plant. For the registration of the above qualified company, documents evidencing the fact of the relevant licensing agreement are required, and the Defendant and H conspiredd to submit the "O" under the name of the US Water Heat, the heatr, the heat exchanger, and the "I" (hereinafter referred to as the "I") to the development enterprises such as the Korea Eastern Power Generation by forging the relevant license agreement.

Therefore, around February 2011, the Defendant, at the above G Energy Headquarters office, prepared the “LICNE AES AEMNT” in the name of the first person as if he/she entered into an agreement with G on technical alliance with the said G, and entered the signature of the said J in the signature column of the I representative J using the verification pent, and thereafter, submitted the signature of the said J to the K representative of the mechanical and technological team of the mechanical and technological team of Korea as if he/she had duly formed the forged franchise as above.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with H, forged one copy of the license, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, and exercised it.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

The defendant purchased L's executive officer, who is a competitor company, in order to receive a contract for an "out-of-the-counter production contract equivalent to the 19 billion won contract amount ordered by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., in relation to "ITER, International Research Institute," which is an international project for development of nuclear fusion," and conspired with H, who is a representative director of G, with H.

Therefore, on August 2010, the Defendant made a proposal that “B, a director of L, who is a director of L's development business, will receive KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 if he received money.” At this time, the Defendant set the amount to be provided to H and B as KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with H and M and provided KRW 300 million in return for the above illegal solicitation.

2. Defendant B

The Defendant, while working for the electricity generation business and design director of the company chain such as the heat exchange machine, was in charge of duties to receive the above "outstanding external production" contract, he was in mind of having received the proposal from the above A on August 8, 2010 and agreed to receive KRW 300 million in return for money from the G to inform the L's bid price in advance.

Therefore, the Defendant received a total of KRW 300 million from the above illegal solicitation twice at the same time and place as the above Section 1(b).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor's office on P, Q, K and R;

1. Counterfeited LICNS AGREENT copies, or forged LICNS AGREEENT in the name of the applicant submitted for the development of the same book;

1. Three copies of the goods purchase contract, a copy of the individual contract for material transactions, the details of expenses incurred in manufacturing ITERPJECT, the application form and a copy of the application form for registration of qualification for the items to be selected; 1. Details of new bank deposits in the name of A, the details of each Q Q account, and the details of the agricultural bank account in the name of B;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Articles 231, 234, 30 (the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private investigation documents), and 357(2) and (1) (the point of giving rise to breach of trust) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant A);

The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is that Defendant A forged documents to obtain licenses related to registration of qualified companies in order to give orders at a thermal power plant, and provided money in return for notifying bidders in advance to order contracts ordered by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., which are ordered by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., and the nature of the crime is very high. In addition, Defendant B also provided unfair money and notified the competitors of the bid price of the company to which Defendant B works, and the nature of the crime is very heavy.

On the other hand, Defendant A submitted data to the effect that he donated the benefits derived from the instant crime to a social organization, which appears to have deposited all of the money to the father of the Defendant, and this does not take into account the favorable circumstances that are difficult to deem that Defendant A returned the benefits gained from the instant crime to the society. In addition, Defendant B appears to be against the State, such as deposit in advance of the amount to be collected, but it is difficult to regard the amount to be collected as an inevitable amount.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendants' circumstances, age, character and conduct revealed in investigation and pleadings shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances after the crime is committed.

Judge Roster