logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.06.05 2015고단682
공문서위조등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the actual operator of the manufacturing and selling chain of industrial machinery in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D (the change of name to F corporation around 2012) and the defendant B is the person who has served as the operation and management department of E.

On November 2010, E entered into a purchase contract with the Korea Eastern Power Generation Co., Ltd. and the other six kinds of parts. According to the items of the purchase contract, “the name and specification of goods” shall comply with the attached material purchase specifications or item specifications, and according to the general conditions of the purchase contract (manufacture), for the items supplied to a thermal power plant, the relevant goods shall comply with the KS specifications, and when the relevant goods are supplied to the thermal power plant, quality assurance documents, such as the test report, quality manuals, factory test plans and procedures, which verify that the above goods meet the KS specifications, may be refused to receive the supplied parts if they fall short of the standard values, and the compensation for delay from the delivery date shall be additionally borne by the delivery company.

1. On October 2010, Defendant B, as seen above, tried to request the Daegu-do Small and Medium Enterprise Office in the Gyeong-gu, Daegu-do to test and analyze performance and quality of samples used for the parts to be supplied to the Dagyeong-gu, Seoul-do, and the said Office notified that it is difficult to analyze the test due to any malfunction in the test, etc., Defendant A reported to the effect that “I would see the contents of the test report previously issued to him and submit it to the chemical power plant,” and Defendant A accepted it.

Accordingly, Defendant B requested G to perform the test and analysis in the name of E representative by using a computer at around that time, and the name of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration on September 21, 2005.

arrow