Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who holds office as an executive director in victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim E”) who conducts printing and publishing business, and has overall control over personnel and business affairs, etc., and Defendant B is a person who holds office as the head of business division of the victimized company, and has conducted business affairs such as securing customers.

From June 201, Defendants created F with the same kind of business as the victimized Company, and used the same company to deduct money from the victimized Company and conspired to divide it.

1. On August 25, 2012, the Defendants were issued KRW 3,047,00 for the supply price from the victimized company with the approval of the I, the representative director of the victimized company, after making orders from the H hospital and requesting the production of the non-exploiting company to deliver printed matters, such as sets, to the above hospital. However, even though the Defendants were produced from the H hospital and supplied the above hospital, the Defendants made related documents as if they were produced by F and applied for double payment to the victimized company, and received delivery from the victimized company.

In addition, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants from around October 11, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (1), and had the Defendants informed the Defendants of I by such a method as above and received a total of KRW 31,409,400 from the victimized Company over ten occasions.

2. On December 28, 201, the Defendants in breach of occupational duty: (a) in the office of the victimized company as described in paragraph (1) around December 28, 201, even though there were occupational duties that ought not to faithfully work for the victimized company and cause property damage to the victimized company, the Defendants in breach of occupational duty prepared relevant documents as if they were to supply general goods to the J while requesting the external company upon receiving a request for the production of the general goods; and (b) supply the goods to the Foreign Company F even when receiving the payment from the victimized company; and (c) supply price of KRW 1,100,000 from J.