A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

(c) Interference with business;

D. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(c)(d)B

Fluorent Number

C. Law Firm

Attorney D (for the defendant)

November 5, 2009

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the defendants shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendants are ordered to provide community service for 200 hours of welfare facility service.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is the actual operator of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) established on April 18, 2001 for the purpose of manufacturing, installing, and constructing, etc. ESD semiconductor traffic signal, etc. (vehicle, pedestrian traffic signal, etc.). Defendant B is a person who works as the head of the instant company from March 2006 to April 200 upon Defendant A’s request.

1. The Defendants conspired to:

A. In order to acquire performance certification by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration under the Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises and Encouragement of Purchase of Their Products Act, it is necessary to pass a factory review by the Gyeonggi-do Small and Medium Enterprise Administration. However, when the application for performance recognition was rejected on April 30, 2007, the company would pass a factory review in the manner of obtaining additional points from the Korea Industrial Technology Association (hereinafter “Korea Industrial Technology Association”) upon obtaining recognition of an organization exclusively in charge of technological development from the Korea Industrial Technology Association. On April 2007, the office of this case did not work as an employee of the company of this case and there is no plan to work as an employee of the company of this case, and the company of this case did not have the above research and development department, despite the fact that the F is not a department exclusively in charge of technological development of the company of this case, the company of this case prepared a false document on the status of employees in charge of the company of this case after obtaining the issuance of the above documents to the Korea Industrial Technology Association's new research department.

B. On June 7, 2007, the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration issued a certificate of performance certification by taking advantage of the letter of recognition of the division of research and development of the Korea Industrial Technology Association acquired as mentioned in the above paragraph (a) on June 7, 2007, to enter into a unit price contract for a third party, which is a form of a negotiated contract with the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service, in accordance with the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party to the Contracts to the Contracts to Which the State is a Party. On June 8, 2007, the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration issued a letter of recognition of division of research and development from the Korea Industrial Technology Promotion Association by submitting a false document to the public official in charge of the Public Procurement Service who is a public official of the Korea Public Procurement Service, who is a public official of the Korea Public Procurement Service, issued the certificate of performance certification to the public official in charge of the Korea Industrial Technology Promotion Agency for the selection of outstanding products, which is a public official of the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service.

C. 2 0 . 2 . 0 . 8 . 2 . 8 . 2 . 2 0 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 0 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 0 . 8 . 1 . 2 0 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 3 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 0 . 1 . 1 . 5 . 8 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 0 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 , 201 . 2 . 3 . 3 . 3 . . 6 3 2 . 3 , etc. . . 3 . 3 . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 3. - to be to be. 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. '. . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Defendant A:

On April 30, 2007, the facts at the office of the company of this case, which is the victim in Hacheon-gu, Sincheon-gu, Sincheon-si, was recorded in the register of members and the ledger of wages as if the defendant was employed even if the F was not employed as a victim's employee, and around that time the F was issued with a deposit account in the name of a national bank transaction in the name of the victim and possessed it, and deposited KRW 1,374,250 out of the victim's funds into the above account and withdrawn it as if the F was paid for wages and bonuses from that time to October 31, 2008, as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) from that time, and embezzled it by making a total of KRW 34,797,640 for a total amount of 19 times, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

【 Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness L;

1. Entry of the accused B in part of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution No. 3 and No. 4 of the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning F and G;

1. Attachment of investigation reports (a copy of the guide books related to the affairs of recognition of the department in exclusive charge of research and development), approval of the department in exclusive charge of research and development of stock companies;

【paragraph 1-b of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness M and N;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. Investigation reports (data on the system of selecting outstanding products), investigation reports (mainly an application for the selection of outstanding products), sentiments of outstanding products, investigation reports (data related to the recognition of performance of the office of small and medium enterprises);

【Paragraph 1-C of Article 1-3】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness0, M, N, and P;

1. Each prosecutorial investigator statement of Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and AA;

1. An investigation report (Attachment to data), investigation report (a copy of the file file file file of a transport business place in Seoul Gangseo-gu), investigation report (goods inspection report and test report, goods purchase request document), investigation report (data on the selection of excellent products), investigation report (information on the system), application for selection of excellent products, investigation report (a statement on the details of delivery of excellent products, etc., Chapter 147, E), investigation report (a statement on the record of application of traffic signal, etc.), investigation report (a statement on crime committed), investigation report (a statement on the record of performance recognition), investigation report (a document related to the conclusion of a contract for excellent products), investigation report (a document related to the third party unit price contract), investigation report (a document related to the third party unit price contract), investigation report (a document attached to the conclusion of the contract for purchase of the procurement goods), investigation report (a document attached to the purchase contract document on September 19, 2007), investigation report (a document attached to the list of crimes No. 201, May 2, 2007);

1. One copy of the purchase data such as ELD traffic signal, etc. (the south-side traffic offices), each purchase data such as PED traffic signal, etc., product announcements such as PED traffic signal, etc. (EE. July 7, 2007), emotional records which are excellent products, and documents related to the request for contract of excellent products;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant A;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. Investigation report (specific points out of the list of members, detailed statement of salary, and fact of payment of personnel expenses);

1. Determination as to the defendants' statement of accounts in the name of F and his defense counsel's assertion

1. As to Paragraph 1(a) of the holding

A. Defendants’ assertion

Although the Defendants submitted false data as if F were actually engaged in the process of issuing a written recognition of the department exclusively dedicated to research and development from the Korea Industrial Technology Association, the Defendants could have easily discovered the above false facts, but in short, it cannot be said that there was a risk of interference with the business of issuing review by recognizing the department exclusively dedicated to research and development of the Association due to the deceptive scheme by the Defendants.

B. Determination

1) In determining whether to accept a request from the other party only when a certain qualification requirement is satisfied upon receipt of the request, the relevant qualification requirements, etc. shall be determined on the premise that the reasons stated in the request may not be inconsistent with the facts. Thus, in a case where the worker in charge of the business knew the applicant's false reasons for application or false explanatory materials and accepted them, without sufficiently verifying the facts, it shall be due to the applicant's insufficient examination, and thus, the applicant's deceptive scheme does not constitute a crime of interference with business by deceptive means. However, in a case where the applicant submits a false assertion to the person in charge of the business, accompanied by false explanatory materials corresponding thereto, the person in charge of the business who decided whether to accept the request has sufficiently examined the existence of the requirements as prescribed in the relevant provisions, but the applicant's failure to discover the reason for application and the false explanatory materials, which led to the degree of acceptance of the application, not the applicant's insufficient examination, and thereby, the danger of interference with business through deceptive means is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do73737, Mar.

2) We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment. ① The Defendants, as stated in the judgment of the Korea Industrial Technology Association when applying for the recognition of the department exclusively dedicated to research and development, entered false supporting documents as if they worked as the F.O. Research and development team and submitted independent research space. ② The recognition of the department exclusively dedicated to research and development by the Association is, in principle, a system that allows on-site verification as necessary before and after the recognition. In fact, the examination of documents of the Association is not carried out. ③ The examination of documents submitted by the applicant for the research project outline, the current status of employees of the department exclusively dedicated to research, research facility specifications, corporate organization, representative director’s curriculum, building management ledger or lease agreement (the overall and internal Lday-OV), relevant photographs of the department exclusively dedicated to research, business registration certificates, or copies of the certificate of graduation or certificate of qualification of the department exclusively dedicated to research upon the issuance of the above documents, and the Defendants’ submission of the above documents to the relevant department dedicated to research and development by the Korea Industrial Technology Association cannot be seen as the above documents.

2. As to Paragraph 1-b of the holding

A. Defendants’ assertion

The main part of performance certification of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration is the technical development synthetic deliberation related to the functions and performance of products, and the recognition of the department exclusively dedicated to research and development is limited to one of the elements of factory examination, and the actual work of the department exclusively dedicated to research and development has been pointed out in the process of recognizing the department exclusively dedicated to research and development.If it is not difficult to supplement it, so it is highly likely to pass the performance certification by supplementing it. Therefore, the submission of performance certification certificate issued by the

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, namely, ① the suitability review of technology developed with technology in order to obtain performance certification from the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, as well as factory review, ② the Defendants submitted false data to the Korea Industrial Technology Association as stated in paragraph (a) of the judgment in order to pass the above factory review to obtain the approval of a department prior to research and development, and subsequently passed the factory review, and finally issued a certificate of performance certification from the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration; ③ the process of the examination of outstanding procurement products was conducted by submitting the certificate of performance certification issued by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration to the Public Procurement Service; ③ the public official of the Public Procurement Service without authority to examine whether the certificate of performance, such as LED traffic signal, of the company of this case, was illegally issued, and finally issued the certificate of performance certification, regardless of whether the Defendants could be actually assigned full-time researchers. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion against this can not be accepted.

3. As to the first multi-paragraph (c) of the holding

A. Defendants’ assertion

1) Since Defendant B did not know at the time that the application for designation of excellent products and the application technology examination were applied to Defendant B at the time and did not know that the application was explained, Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant B in the judgment.

2) The outstanding products designated by the Public Procurement Service are sold through the national store shopping mall of the Public Procurement Service, and the products are introduced by posting the specifications for outstanding products in the shopping mall. There is no indication on the specifications for the instant company's LED traffic signal, etc., and in fact there is no introduction that the Defendants introduced that the above traffic signal product is applied to the procuring entity that purchases excellent products through the national market shopping mall, and therefore, there is no indication on the specifications for the instant company's LED traffic signal, etc.

3) A procuring entity that actually purchased the instant company’s LPE traffic signals, etc. was confirmed in the course of delivery that it did not apply to the said excellent products, and that it did not believe that it was an applicable product of tega-technology, and thus, there is no causal relationship arising from the Defendants’ deception.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion of the foregoing A-1

A) The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., (i) the person operating the instant company, who is the actual operator of the instant company, belongs to the Defendant A at the time of profit-making under the designation of the good procurement product in the future; (ii) the patent invention right holder of the instant patent, which claims for the physical layout technology and fusing technology, appears not to have made the product description data of the patent-related product at will by the Defendant A without his own intent; (iii) the company size appears to have never been engaged in the business related to the designation of the good products by the Defendant B while gathering the content of the Defendant A at all; and (iv) the Defendant in fact discussed with the Public Procurement Service about the application for the designation of the good products at issue with the Defendant B at any time in relation to the signal of the instant case and heard the progress from the Defendant B; and (v) it is reasonable to view that the Defendant A also conspired to commit deception without his awareness as to the application for the designation of good products and the application technology examination.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is rejected.

B) In addition, according to the evidence of the judgment, even if there is no public offering as mentioned in the above paragraph (a), each of the following facts are acknowledged: (a) in the course of delivery of the instant company's LED traffic signal, a series of deceptions was conducted as well as deceptions on the requirements that can be recognized as excellent products as well as deceptions; (b) Defendant A has adopted F falsely; (c) Defendant A has received reports from Defendant B at any time in the process of filing an application for outstanding procurement products and entering into a contract; and (d) has participated in deceptions on the requirements for recognition of outstanding products to the Public Procurement Service; and (e) Defendant A has taken part in deceptions with Defendant B. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant A can be sufficiently recognized in collusion with Defendant B. Therefore, in light of

2) As to the allegation in paragraphs (2) and (3) above

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service, ① it is possible to conclude a unit price contract for an outstanding procurement product for a third party, which is the form of a free contract. ② From among the products manufactured by using a registered patent to be selected as an excellent procurement product, the Defendants have obtained performance certification from the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration and applied for recognition of the excellent procurement product under the premise that the above transportation signal, etc. satisfies the requirements for recognition of the excellent procurement product. ③ Since the above transportation signal, etc. can not be applied to the above excellent procurement product, the Defendants’ request for inspection of the standardized procurement product was made with a false statement that the above excellent procurement technology would not be applied to the above excellent procurement product, and the above reliance technology would not be applied to the designated procurement institution after the conclusion of the contract, and the above reliance technology would not be applied to the third party's request for examination of the standardized procurement product.

4. As to Paragraph 2 of the holding

A. Defendant A’s assertion

Since the defendant actually owns 100% of the company of this case, the defendant had no intention to commit embezzlement.

B. Determination

Even in a single-person company in which the shares of a stock company actually belong to one shareholder, the company and the shareholder are clearly separate personality and therefore the company's assets are not immediately owned by one shareholder. Thus, even if the company is practically a single-person shareholder, the act of disposal of the company's funds at will during the occupational custody constitutes a crime of embezzlement in the course of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do59, Mar. 14, 1995). Even if the defendant is actually a single-person shareholder of the company of this case as alleged by the defendant, the act of the judgment constitutes a crime of embezzlement in the course of business. According to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized in relation to the act of arbitrarily using the company's assets of this case by the defendant. Accordingly, the above argument by

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 3(1)1 and 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (including fraud, including fraud)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest penalty]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code (The following consideration shall be taken into account in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendants committed the instant business obstruction, obstruction of performance of official duties, and frauds by deceiving the Korea Industrial Technology Association, the Public Procurement Service, respectively, in order to secure and increase sales of the instant company PED traffic signals, etc. by unlawful means, and thereby, commit the crime of fraud, and thereby, commit the crime and criminal intent are not good. Nevertheless, the Defendants denied the instant crime and do not seriously reflect the truth. Thus, the Defendants cannot impose the corresponding punishment on the Defendants.

However, in light of the following circumstances: ① Defendant A is the first offender, Defendant B has no criminal history of the same kind, and only Defendant B has the criminal history of a fine; ② the instant company’s LED traffic signal satisfies the standard guidelines such as the National Police Agency’s LED traffic signal; each end-user institution that is supplied with the above traffic signal, etc. also has been supplied with the above traffic signal, etc. after passing the examination process; and furthermore, each end-user institution did not have any problem such as the defect of the product after installing the above traffic signal, etc.; and even after the commencement of the investigation, the end-user institutions did not receive all the purchased products and pay the price after the commencement of the investigation into the instant case, the traffic signal, etc. supplied by the instant crime appears to have a certain level of performance and did not cause damage related to road traffic; ③ Whether it was applied with the contents of the judgment in the instant case; ④ as long as the traffic signal, etc. was supplied, the amount of the above traffic signal cannot be deemed as actual damage to the procuring agency or end-user institution; and the Defendants’s punishment should be determined differently within the type of the Defendants.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, the Korea Judge Judge;

Judges Kim Gi-hee

Judges Yoon kyl-ran

1) Shall put LED into the outer or center of the plate so that it may take the static form, except in part of the outer part, and perform the function of maintaining the insignia equally with the technology of arranging the radiation-type arrangement in the chilling form as a whole.

2) A technology designed to put ESD into 23-25 · fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial differences between the outer and the core and the core, perform a function to minimize the elu

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.