Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of 4,000,000 won, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. The co-principal defendant A is the team leader of the C&A team, and the defendant B operates the "E" at the Cheongju-si.

The Defendants conspired to acquire the fertilizer price by submitting false supply documents to the C&C as they supplied F&D fertilizers to F&C facilities.

Defendant

A, on March 17, 2017, around Cheongju-si Office in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si prepared a letter of intent to purchase fertilizers to H, an employee, and Defendant B submitted to the contracting officer of the C&D a letter of supply, electronic tax invoice, photograph, etc. that he supplied F&D 60 copies of a composite fertilizer called “rocketing” to F facilities on March 17, 2017.

However, there was no fact that Defendant B supplied F facilities with 60 rocketing “rocketing”. As such, as if the said fertilizers were supplied, it was assumed that Defendant B received supply price from C&C by means of fraud, and then divided it with Defendant A.

As such, the Defendants conspired, by deceiving a contracting officer in charge of the name of the Victim C&C corporation, and by deceiving the Defendants, transferred KRW 1,40,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under Defendant B’s name on March 30, 2017 as the fertilizer price.

2. Where there is no concern about actual disadvantage to Defendant A’s exercise of the right to defense, it does not violate the principle of no accusation even if the court recognizes some other facts or different applicable provisions of laws without modification of a bill of indictment. However, whether substantial disadvantage is given to the exercise of the right to defense should be determined by comprehensively taking account of various factors, such as the seriousness of statutory punishment and the difference in seriousness thereof, whether it is obvious that there is a possibility that the Defendant would differ from his own defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4749, Dec. 27, 2007). The crime of embezzlement and the crime of breach of trust are the same trust relationship.