1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months;

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

Criminal facts

To the extent that the facts charged in the indictment do not disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, some amendments were made according to the facts obtained through the examination of evidence.

The Defendant is only called “E” for convenience after “Co., Ltd. E”.

(A) The representative director of the company (a company engaged in business, such as the development of equipment in the field of information and communications, the supply of hardware, and the installation of hardware), and F is the representative director of "G of the victim corporation" (a company engaged in business

The defendant and F are between the defendant and the Korea Naval Academy.

On June 10, 2010, the Defendant, at the E office located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, ordered F to “E to receive a contract for the establishment of equipment CBT from the headquarters in 2010.” The Defendant entered into a service contract with the victim and “the equipment type CBT production and business H/W purchase/construction project” with the headquarters in 2010.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant, without any particular property, was liable for a loan (guarantee) obligation of approximately KRW 240 million, and did not pay approximately KRW 100 million for taxes, such as value-added tax, and the financial circumstances such as the amount of loss of KRW 100 million in 2009 are not very good. As such, even if the Defendant entered into the above service contract with the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the service cost “in time”.

In full view of the property status and environment of the Defendant before and after the instant service contract, the details of the conclusion of the service contract, the process of the performance of the transaction, the relationship with F, etc., which can be seen through the following evidence, the Defendant is determined to have committed the “act of deception” with “the willful negligence of fraud”.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, had the victim engage in the above service by deceiving F, and then paid to the victim KRW 150 million.