Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, the Defendants are above two years from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[Personal Relationship] From October 2014, Defendant A and Defendant C operated “I” for the supply of machinery parts used in line operations related to steel products as a partnership business (hereinafter “the foregoing company”) and engaged in the management of the above company’s supplier and the collection of goods and the management of funds for the company. Defendant B is a business director of the Gyeonggi-do Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Development Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the above company”), who receives goods from the above company, and is engaged in the business of entering into a contract for supply of goods, etc. for the above company.

[Criminal facts]

1. Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement from October 10, 201 to March 2, 2017: (a) in the foregoing business entity located in Daegu-gu L apartment 13 Dong 105 from around October 10, 2014 to around March 2, 2017, Defendant A deposited KRW 137,653,620 as shown in the attached Table 1 of the crime sight list among those kept for business purposes by collecting KRW 156,352,00 from the Plaintiff, and then embezzled KRW 18,698,380 from his/her daily living expenses, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed 18,698,380 won and embezzled money that he had been kept in custody for the victim.

2. Defendant B and Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust in collusion with Defendant A on September 1, 2015, in concluding the supply contract with the said company for the said company on behalf of the victimized person, Defendant A had a duty of care to conclude the supply contract through legitimate procedures and fair competition, despite the fact that Defendant A had a duty of care to conclude the supply contract through legitimate procedures, had Defendant A issue tax invoices at a price higher than the actual supply amount, and had the difference paid by Defendant A.

Defendant

B In around September 1, 2015, at the office of the above company, the defendant A added 2.5 million won to the actual delivery amount of the Spanish products to the office of the K headquarters which will place an additional order.