2018Gohap835 A. Violation of the Foreign Trade Act

(b) Property in breach of trust;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.(c)(c)

4.(a) Co., Ltd. D

5.a. E Co., Ltd.

6.c)F

Maximum case (prosecution), and Song-wing case (public trial)

Law Firm G (Defendant A and corporation B)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm I (for Defendants C, D and E)

J., Attorney J

November 30, 2018

Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, Defendant A, and F, by a fine of 20,00,000 won for each of the Defendant Company B, and Company E, and by a fine of 2,50,000,00 won for each of the Defendant Company C.

However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for three years against Defendant C, Defendant A, and F shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Each community service order shall be given to Defendant C for 160 hours, Defendant A, and F for 120 hours. The penalty surcharge of KRW 42,00,000 from Defendant C and KRW 66,00,000 from Defendant F shall be additionally collected. Defendant C and F shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional charge. Defendant C and E shall be ordered to pay the provisional penalty for each corresponding fine. Defendant B and E. shall be ordered to pay the provisional penalty for each corresponding fine.

Criminal facts

1. Status of the Defendants

On June 21, 2011, Defendant A established and operated Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B” in this paragraph, Defendant B, and if not, “B” in this paragraph, Defendant C is an employee in charge of business in K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “K”) from around 2001 to January 201, and Defendant D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D”) established and operated Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D”) on December 19, 201, and on June 19, 201, Defendant E Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E” in this paragraph, Defendant E Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant, and its parts, if not, are substantially established and operated, Defendant C is an employee in charge of business operation, Defendant E Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E” in this case, and Defendant E Co., Ltd., Ltd.’s employees in charge of business operation and retail.

2. The definition of strategic items and export control of strategic items refers to weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons, unregistered weapons, goods usable for the manufacture and development thereof, software, technology, etc., and are divided into military items and double-use items. In addition to military items, double-use items may threaten world peace and international security when they are transferred to an aptitude country, Korea, together with other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, has entered into a strategic item export control system, etc., which is the principle of international export control of strategic items, and has harmed the export control of strategic items and the sharing of information among countries in accordance with the Foreign Trade Act.

Since it can be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear history, for the maintenance of international peace and security and national security, it is necessary to impose restrictions on export permission, etc., and various goods are classified as strategic items, and controls international distribution such as those subject to export permission.

Any person who intends to export" strategic items designated and publicly notified as above shall obtain permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy or the head of the relevant administrative agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and any person who intends to export strategic items from abroad shall file an export report with the head of the competent permitting agency after obtaining export permission, and shall not file an export report with the head of the competent customs office without obtaining permission, recommendation, certification, or other conditions necessary for export

In particular, in order to export to China, Hong Kong and other countries, including China, which did not join the 'baar system', it should be examined in advance as to whether the strategic items are likely to be exclusively used for the manufacture, development, and use of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear history, or to be distributed in the aptitude countries, by clarifying the technical characteristics and use of the requested items, place of use, etc.

3. Pursuant to strategic items of each Arabic chips listed in the annexed Table 1, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as "IC chips");

Countries involved in the international export control system such as Korea and the United States have commonly used export control classification numbers (ECCN) by classifying strategic items according to the location, type, performance, and specifications of each product and classifying them according to the location, type, and quantity of each product.

Attached 1 Model Name "Copic Name" means each chips listed in attached Tables 4 and 5 and each IC chips listed in the "Real Product Name" column for "Copic Name" for "Copic Name" are all the products produced by Analovice Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ADI") in the Anala City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ADI"), which have the function of converting the Anala signal into digital signal, and the export-import notice of strategic items in Korea [Attachment 2] falls under the export control classification number of 3A01.a. of the list of double-use items (ECCN) and are designated and publicly notified as strategic items subject to export permission. As a result of the determination of the strategic items manager, it was confirmed that they are strategic items.

4. ADI’s strict management structure for the distribution of IC chips, which are strategic items, is a manufacturer of IC chips located in each market in the United States, and has a domestic branch, ADI Korea. The strategic items, which are the export control components, are supplied only to semiconductor distribution agencies, such as K, and the buyer controlled the distribution of strategic items only through the above distribution agencies.

Specifically, in order to purchase strategic items manufactured by ADI in Korea, ① the buyer is registered as a trading company of the distribution agency after the actual inspection of whether the goods are used in Korea, ② the above ADI is submitted to Korea through the distribution agency with an order stating the buyer, the price and quantity of the requested items, the due date and purpose of use, and if the ADI subject to the order is again transferred to ADI, the ADI is exported of strategic items to the purchasing company under the permission of the Government of the United States of America.

5. Defendant A

A. Violation of the Foreign Trade Act

The defendant A submitted a certificate to the effect that "if he intends to purchase an chip and export it to another country, he must obtain all export permission from the United States and the Korean government" while purchasing an chip from ADI, he/she has been engaged in the same industry for a total period of time, not only in the export control number (ECCN), but also in the product principal documents and invoices that he/she ordered, and that he/she shall not obtain all export permission from the United States and the Korean government."

Nevertheless, Defendant A was supplied with ICT chips, which are strategic items, from manufacturers of the above IC chips and exported them to Hong Kong without permission, using the fact that each of the above IC chips is traded at a higher level than that of the Republic of Korea. Defendant A ordered that 90 chips, which are export control parts of the IC chips, were used in the Republic of Korea, from ADI who trusted the purchase of the above IC chips, and around July 24, 2013, without permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and without permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, Defendant A received the total of 10 U.S. dollars 890 U.S. dollars 90 market value of the above IC chips from the manufacturer of the IC chips and exported them to Hong Kong, etc., Defendant A received 36 U.S. dollars 288,444 U.S. dollars from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (hereinafter referred to as “M”).

B. Co-defendant C (hereafter referred to as "C" in this paragraph and the following paragraphs) was a person who worked as a K sales officer from around 2001 to around January 201, 201, and was ordered to purchase from an exporter, and had a certain level of discretion on the volume, price, margin, payment date, etc. of ordered products when purchasing orders from the purchaser company, and exercised influence on the purchaser company, such as conducting a real inspection as to whether the purchased goods are actually used in the Republic of Korea. around October 2013, the Defendant offered C with a total of KRW 10 to 10 to 200 to 30 to 40 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 10 to 40 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 140 to 20 to 30 to 30 to 40 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 140 to 20 to 30 to 20 to 30 to 10 to .30 to 30 to 14 to .

As a result, Defendant A made an illegal solicitation and provided property to a person in charge of another’s business.

C. On January 2015, Co-Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as Co-Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as "F") retired from K, a distributor of ICT chips, and the F was a person working for the same company as a person in charge of business, and upon receiving purchase orders from the supplier of electronic parts and the exporter, the F exercised influence on the purchaser, such as the volume, price, margin, payment period, etc. of the ordered product and the actual inspection as to whether the purchased product was actually used in the Republic of Korea.

On April 29, 2016, Defendant A made an illegal solicitation to F to enable F to purchase goods at a price higher than that of ordinary supply prices, and to provide F with part of profits instead of offering transaction convenience, such as delaying the payment timing of goods than other companies and failing to verify the identity of the final user of the ICT chips. Defendant A, in return for the foregoing illegal solicitation, remitted KRW 2,50,000 to the Korean bank account (Account Number N) in F around April 29, 2016, as shown in attached Table 3, including transfer of KRW 2,50,000 to the Korean bank account (Account Number N) in the name of F, and thereafter, provided F with the total amount of KRW 6,00,000 over 22 times from that time to April 16, 2018.

As a result, Defendant A made an illegal solicitation and provided property to a person in charge of another’s business.

6. Defendant B

Defendant B, a representative director, exported the IC chips, which are strategic items, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, as described in Section 5(a).

7. Defendant C. Defendant C., a distribution agent of chips, had worked in K on a regular basis, and the above company provided education to its employees on the export control of strategic items, and Defendant C’s purchase of each of the IC chips listed in [Attachment 4 and [Attachment 5] "Real Export Schedule" from ADI and "to export chips to another country" must be subject to all export permission of the United States and our government." (BIS-711) submitted a confirmation to the effect that each of the above IC chips falls under export control items and can only be used domestically and shall not be exported abroad without permission.

(a) Violation of the Foreign Trade Act related to D;

Defendant C was supplied with IC chips, which are strategic items, from manufacturers of IC chips, and exported them to Hong Kong, etc. without permission, using the fact that each IC chips listed in [Attachment 4 Crime List] are traded at a higher level than Korea in other countries, including Hong Kong. Defendant C ordered 1,150 IC chips, which are export control components, as if they were used in Korea, to purchase the said chips from ADI and trusted 1,150 IC chips, and then without obtaining export permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on February 3, 2015, and without obtaining export permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on the aggregate of USD 1,150 chips, 34,50 chips, 350 chips and 40 chips from the total market price of the above IC chips from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on the aggregate of USD 1,150 chips from 250 chips and 316 2.5

B. Violation of the Foreign Trade Act E

Defendant C established E in the name of P, an employee, around June 19, 2015, in order to prevent exposure to competitors, and actually operated the said company, supplied IC chips, which are strategic items, from manufacturers of IC chips, to export them to Hong Kong, etc. without permission. Defendant C ordered 520 IC chips, which are part of export control at the D office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1117, as if they were used in the Republic of Korea by other manufacturers, such as “AD9230B CP-250” and 520 IC chips, which are part of export control, to purchase the above IC chips from AD I and trusted around July 2, 2015, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy from 30 U.S. dollars and 409 U.S. dollars in the name of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government, and without obtaining permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, 2008.

Accordingly, Defendant C exported chips, which are strategic materials, without export permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy.

(c) Property in breach of trust;

Defendant C had worked as K sales officer from around 2001 to January 201, 201 as an ICT chip distributor. In the event that Defendant C receives purchase orders from the purchasing and exporting companies of electronic parts, Defendant C was given a certain amount of discretion on the volume, price, margin, payment date, etc. of the ordered product, and Defendant C exercised influence on the purchasing company, such as conducting a domestic inspection as to whether the purchased product is actually used in the Republic of Korea.

Defendant C is in charge of selling and selling an order of chips at the above K, and it shall not adjust the sales price in return for the benefit received from the purchaser, delay the settlement date of the price of the goods, etc. against the company’s interest or for personal interest.

Nevertheless, Defendant C received an illegal solicitation from Co-Defendant A to the same purport as that set forth in Section 5-B around October 2013, and as a result, around October 30, 2013, Defendant C received KRW 3,000,000 in cash from Defendant B office located in Gwangju-si Lan-si around October 30, 2013 and received KRW 42,00,000 in total 14 times from around that time to November 29, 2014.

As a result, Defendant C acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation as to his duties as a person who administers another’s business.

8. Defendant D

Defendant D exported chips, which are strategic items, to Co-Defendant D, without export permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, as described in Section 7(a)(3).

9. Defendant E. Defendant E., the actual representative of Defendant E, exported chips, which are strategic items, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, as described in Article 7-2(b).

10. Defendant F

The Defendant, as a business operator of K, who is an ICT chip distributor, received purchase orders from the purchasing company and the exporters of electronic parts, was given a certain amount of discretion on the quantity, price, margin, payment period, etc. of ordered goods and exercised influence on the purchasing company by conducting a real-time inspection as to whether the goods purchased by the purchasing company are actually used in the Republic of Korea. As Defendant F is in charge of the sales business in the above K, it shall not be allowed to adjust the sales price for the goods received from the purchaser in return for the benefit of the purchasing company or to delay the payment period for the goods.

Nevertheless, around April 2016, Defendant F received an illegal solicitation from Co-defendant A to the same purport as set forth in Section 5-C. In return, around April 29, 2016, Defendant F received KRW 2,500,000 from the bank account (Account Number N) in the name of Defendant F and received KRW 2,50,000 from the bank account in the name of Defendant F around April 29, 2016 and received KRW 66,00,000 in total two times from around that time to April 16, 2018.

As a result, Defendant F acquired property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties as a person in charge of another’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Examination protocol of suspect suspect of P by prosecution;

1. 수사보고(M 등에 수출한 내역 편철 등) 및 그에 첨부된 ㈜B 이 M 등에 수출한 내역, 주 신용조사리포트, 법인등기부등본, 수사보고[(주)B 매입 세적자료 편철 등] 및 그에 첨부된 ㈜B 매입처별 세금계산서 발행 내역, 수사보고[(주)B 전체 수출내역 편철등] 및 그에 첨부된 ㈜B 수출 내역, 수사보고(전략물자 수출허가여부 조회, 증거목록 순번 10) 및 그에 첨부된 대상 업체에 대한 수출허가여부 조회 및 회신 공문, 수사보고(ECCN 작성 목록 편철 등) 및 그에 첨부된 ㈜B 수출 품명에 대한 ECCN 작성 회신(K), 수사보고(전략물자해당성 판정 대상 목록 작성) 및 그에 첨부된 전략물 자해당성 판정 대상 목록, 수사보고(Mutual agreement for export policy 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 Mutual agreement for export policy, 수사보고(EUC제출 등) 및 그에 첨부된 A 제출 EUC 자료, ㈜K 입고품 기준 국내업체판매처 정리 현황, 수사보고(주)B 실제 수출 품명 제출 등] 및 그에 첨부된 ㈜B 실제 수출 품명 목록, 수사보고(전략물자해당성 판정자료 편철 등) 및 그에 첨부된 전략물자해당성 판정결과, 수사보고(수출신고필증 편철, 증거목록 순번 38) 및 그에 첨부된 각 수출신고필증, 수사보고(법인등기부등본 등 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 법인등기부등본(주식회사 B), 사업자등록증(주식회사 B), 수사보고(전략물자 해당여부 검토 결과 통보) 및 그에 첨부된 전략물자 해당여부 검토 결과 회신 공문, 수사보고[전략물자 수출입고시 및 (별표2) 이중용도품목 편철] 및 그에 첨부된 전략물자수출입고시(산업통상자원부고시 제2017-24호), [별표2] 이중용도품목, [별표12] 바세나르체제 기본지침, [별표4] 통제 번호의 국제수출통제체제별분류, [별표6] 전략물자 수출지역 구분, 수사보고(M 등 해 외 업체에 수출한 내역 편철 등) 및 그에 첨부된 E가 M 등에 수출한 내역, E 신용조사리포트, 수사보고([(주)E 전체 수출내역 편철 등] 및 그에 첨부된 수출내역(주식회사 E), 수사보고(전략물자 수출허가 여부 조회, 증거목록 순번 55) 및 그에 첨부된 대상업체에 대한 수출허가여부 조회 · 회신 공문, ㈜D 신용정보리포트, 주D가 M에 수출한 내역, ㈜D 수출내역, 수사보고(실제 수출 IC칩 품명 목록 및 진술서 제출 등) 및 그에 첨부된 E 실제 수출품명(직접작성), D 실제수출품명(직접작성), K조직도, 수사보고(법인등기부등본 등 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 등기부등본(주식회사 D), 사업자등록증(주식회사 D), 등기부등본(주식회사 E), 사업자등록증(주식회사 E), 수사보고(전략물자관리원 전략물자해당여부 검토 결과 통보) 및 그에 첨부된 전략물자 해당여부 검토 결과 회신 공문, 수사보고(K 수출통제부품 교육자료 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 K 자체 교육자료(수사기록 제6권), 수사보고(거래명세서 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 각 거래명세서, 수사보고(D 발주서 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 각 발주서, 수사보고(D 등이 작성하여 K에 제출한 BIS 편철 등) 및 그에 첨부된 D 등이 작성하여 K에 제출한 BIS, 수사보고(수출신고필증 편철, 증거목록 순번 88) 및 그에 첨부된 각 수출신고필증(D, E), 수사보고(금원 공여 장소 확인 등) 및 그에 첨부된 각 화면 캡쳐, 수사보고(K 교육자료 번역본 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 교육자료 번역본, 수사보고(거래 내역 등 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 각 금융거래내역(C, 주식회사 D, 주식회사 E), 각 등 기부등본(주식회사 D, 주식회사 E), 사업자등록증(주식회사 D, 주식회사 E) 법령의 적용

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

A. Defendant A, Article 53(2)2 of the Foreign Trade Act, the main text of Article 19(2) (a) of the Foreign Trade Act, and Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively, (b)

B. Defendant B, Articles 57 and 53(2)2 of the Foreign Trade Act, and the main text of Article 19(2) of the same Act. Defendant C, each of which covers the export of strategic items under Articles 53(2)2 and 19(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “former Criminal Act”) Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 201; hereinafter referred to as “former Criminal Act”). Article 357(1) of the

D. Defendant D angle, Articles 57 and 53(2)2 of the Foreign Trade Act, and the main text of Article 19(2)

E. Defendant E, Articles 57 and 53(2)2 of the Foreign Trade Act, and the main text of Article 19(2)

F. Defendant F

In general, Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of taking property in breach of trust, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendants A, C, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a) (a crime of violation of the Foreign Trade Act as of November 19, 2014 against Defendant A with the largest degree of crime and criminal administration, and a crime of violation of the Foreign Trade Act as of April 28, 2015 against Defendant C, each of the concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Foreign Trade Act as of April 28, 2015)

B. Defendants B, D, E, former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (each of the most severe crimes against Defendant B is a violation of the Foreign Trade Act as of November 19, 2014 against Defendant B, a violation of the Foreign Trade Act as of April 28, 2015 against Defendant D, and a violation of the Foreign Trade Act as of February 23, 2018 against Defendant E, each penalty concurrent crimes prescribed under the Foreign Trade Act as of February 23, 2018)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A, C, and F) and Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be given to each of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. community service order (defendant A, C, and F), Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 (1) of the Probation Act;

1. Additional collection:

A. The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Code

B. Defendant F

The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (defendant B, C, D, E, F) and Article 33 of the Provisional Payment Order;

1. Defendant A and B

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

1) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than seven years;

2) Defendant B: A fine of not less than 50,00 won but not more than 469,494,040 won (=104,332,09 won X 3 x 1.5,00 won, hereinafter the same shall apply)

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria (Defendant A);

1. Basic crime: The crime of giving or taking in breach of trust;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least KRW 100,00)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 20 days but not more than 1 year and 6 months (aggravating the combination of the same parallels by 1 step increase, the minimum sentence of 1/3 months shall be mitigated)

2) Concurrent Crimes: Each of the following: The sentencing criteria for a violation of the Foreign Trade Act shall not be set.

3) Application of multiple crime handling standards

shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 20 days; and

Defendant A’s export of more than 37,00 strategic items without a long-term export permission under the name of Defendant B, and delivery of money and valuables to the employees of the above IC chips in return for illegal solicitation. Defendant A and B’s economic interest seems to be considerable due to the crime of violation of the Foreign Trade Act, and the purpose of the Foreign Trade Act demanding export of strategic items for the maintenance of international peace and security and national security, etc. However, Defendant A cannot be deemed to be less than the nature of the crime in light of the fact that there is no criminal power except for those subject to a fine once imposed on the same kind of crime. According to the export and import notice of strategic items, it is difficult to conclude that the IC chips exported of this case is used for military purposes only with evidence submitted by the Prosecutor that Defendant A had the same risk as the export of the items for the same purpose as those of the items for the export of the items for the same use as those of the items for the military, and that Defendant A’s economic and social relationship with the IC chips were discontinued, and made efforts to prevent the new type of strategic.

2. Defendant C, D, and E

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

1) Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than seven years and six months;

2) Defendant D: Not less than 50,000 won but not less than 638,02,081 won (=141,796,018 won x 3 x 1.5) Defendant E: Not less than 50,000 won but not more than 381,678,750 won (==84,817,500 won x 3 x 1.5) for sentencing guidelines (Defendant C)

(a) Basic crime: Misappropriation; and

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than 30 million won, less than 50 million won) Acceptance of Property in Breach of Trust (no special person)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment for not less than 8 months but not more than 1 year and 6 months;

2) Concurrent Crimes: Each of the following: The sentencing criteria for a violation of the Foreign Trade Act shall not be set.

3) Application of multiple crime handling standards

Determination of sentence of imprisonment for not less than eight months;

Defendant C does not obtain export permission but export IC chips under the name of Defendant D, approximately KRW 9,00 under the name of Defendant E, approximately KRW 53,00, and exported IC chips from each of the above IC chips’ employees. It constitutes the instant crime of receiving money and valuables from a trader in return for illegal solicitation of duties. Defendant E-related violation of the Foreign Trade Act is about three years, and the term of the crime is about three years, and the economic benefits of Defendant C and E are considerable. Defendant C attempted to abolish the fact that the export of the above IC chips, which is a strategic item, by filing a false export declaration of the exported item. In light of the purpose of the Foreign Trade Act requiring export permission of strategic items for international peace, safety maintenance and national security, it cannot be deemed that the quality of the crime is somewhat weak, but according to the fact that Defendant C is an initial offender with no criminal power, according to strategic items, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant CIC chips were exported with the same economic benefits of Defendant C and/or for the same purpose.

3. Defendant F

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than five years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] No type 3 (at least 50 million won, less than 100 million won) shall be granted as property in breach of trust.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year, but not more than two years and six months. Determination of sentence

Defendant F is difficult to view that the crime of this case was committed in consideration of the fact that he works as an employee of an ICT chip supplier and received money from a trader in return for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his duties, the crime of this case was committed in consideration of the background and period of the crime of this case, and the amount of the recovered money, etc. However, Defendant F has no record of crime except that he has been punished once by a fine of this kind, Defendant F has been divided into the fact that there is no record of crime, late and late, and actively cooperates in the collection preservation procedure of money equivalent to the amount of the stolen money, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing such as Defendant F’s age, character and conduct, occupation, environment, family relationship, etc.

The judge of the presiding judge shall be net;

Judges Choi Dong-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-han

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.

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.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.