beta
Text
Defendant
A A The Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000, KRW 700,000, KRW 700,000, KRW 1,500, KRW 00.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
D operates the LP gas supplier called "J", and Defendant B is the interest auditor of the K apartment unit in Macheon-si, and Defendant C is the above apartment management complaint.
1. Defendant A
A. On March 2015, 2015, the fraud Defendant is entitled to gas supply rights because the contract with the company that supplied the LP gas to K apartment is immediately terminated, and it is a friendly gap with C, the head of the above apartment management office.
In order to do so, it was false that the president of the Dong representative of apartment house, etc. should pay to the chairperson of Dong representative of apartment house, etc., and 20,000 won is changed.
However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, the defendant issued only 3 million won to the above apartment auditor B, and most of the remaining amounts were thought to be used as purchase of personal vehicles and living expenses.
Nevertheless, on March 17, 2015, the defendant acquired 17 million won from the injured party with the delivery of 17 million won as the street funds.
B. On March 17, 2015, the Defendant again made a solicitation to the effect that “M cafeteria interest auditor” in the “M cafeteria Loncheon-si, Macheon-si, would be able to be selected by J in the bidding for the selection of an apartment LP gas supplier at the request of other Dong representatives.” On March 17, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 3 million to B’s account as the honorarium.
Accordingly, the defendant made an illegal solicitation to a person who handles another's business and contributed to the property.
2. Defendant B, from around September 2014 to September 20, 2015, was entrusted with an audit of interest on the said K apartment to perform apartment management affairs.
On May 2015, the Defendant was scheduled to make a bid to select a gas supplier for the above apartment building, and thus, there was a duty to select a gas supplier through fair procedures.
Nevertheless, the Defendant’s “M cafeteria” around March 2015 from A to other Dong representatives.