logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고합438
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, each of the above four years against the defendants from the date of the final judgment of this case.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of K, a corporation established for the purpose of providing services, such as parking and expenses, with an office in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, and Defendant B is a person who served as the deputy head of the company from November 2014 to August 2015, and has been engaged in the business of receiving services, such as participation in bidding by the head of the country, which is the National Electronic Procurement System.

1. On January 9, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City I Corporation (hereinafter “I Corporation”) issued a public notice of the bid for cleaning service for the facility operated by the I Corporation on the website of the country, which is the National Electronic Procurement System, and posted the performance of cleaning service of at least 25,50.70 square meters in total for at least one year within the last three years as the requirements for entering into a contract. However, K Co., Ltd did not have any performance in cleaning service that meets the standards for entering into the contract.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to enter into a cleaning service contract by deceiving the I Corporation.

This part of the facts charged states that “the Defendants conspired to forge the service contract, service performance certificate, and submitted it to the Corporation to interfere with the duties of the said Corporation.” However, as seen thereafter, the Defendants acquitted Defendant A of the forgery of each of the above private documents, the use of each of the above investigation documents, and the obstruction of duties. As such, the Defendants’ conspiracy partially recognized the contents of the Defendants’ solicitation differently from the facts charged.

A. Defendant B forged a certificate of the performance of the service performance under the document forgery 1) stated the purport that “K performed the service for one year from N, etc.’s total floor area (10,503 square meters) on the 2012 by using a certificate of performance of the service performance under the name of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Stock Co., Ltd.” in the name of the company omitted) that K supplied the service related to parking in around 2012, and among January 2015, K performed the service for one year from L’s employees M at L office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul 2012.”

arrow