A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the business of selling motor vehicle parts and the business of collecting money from the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim D Co., Ltd.") that engages in the wholesale and retail business of motor vehicle parts in Asia-si from March 1, 1992 to July 1, 2015.

On the other hand, E operated the F Co., Ltd. from February 28, 2006, when it was habitually supplied the automobile parts from the victimized company from around February 28, 2006, but was classified as a malicious trading place by causing damage to the victimized company due to the violation of the duty to pay goods and pay goods, and the victimized company ordered employees in charge of business, including the Defendant, to not make transactions with E and its operators.

However, E, which was no longer supplied with the automobile parts from the victimized Company, was supplied with the automobile parts by the victimized Company by establishing in sequence I and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) under the name of G, H, an employee, and by pretending to be a new customer.

On March 2011, when the Defendant began to supply automobile parts to the J, the Defendant created agency codes to the J without permission without permission without reporting on the upper part in order to enhance the business performance even though the J knew that it is an actual operator of the automobile parts. However, around June 2011, the Defendant was unable to avoid any transactional relationship with the E even after receiving a report from the Defendant’s subordinate employees on the unemployment status of the J.

On June 31, 2011, the Defendant said to the effect that it is difficult for the Defendant to continue transactions with the J office located in Gwangju to the effect that it is difficult, but, on the other hand, the part of the automobile amount equivalent to KRW 2,558,061,660 in total between March 31, 2011 and November 30, 201, the Defendant did not report the fact that the actual operator of the J is E in the damaged company, who received an illegal solicitation from E to the effect that “to pay money equivalent to the part of the amount of the goods supplied if it is possible to continue to be supplied with the automobile parts.”