A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

. is.

Although the specification of materials is written in 25.3 * 1,650m, the remaining 350m cannot be used in any other place, so it must be included in the material cost as a matter of course.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that “The material cost of GUDE PIPE (“L”) No. 2 once a year was written in 25 meters * 560 meters for manufacturing, and the actual size was 25.3* 576 meters, and 25.3* 5,400 meters for cutting off pipes in size of 234 meters and cutting off nine parts.”

However, in light of the above Main Guides Pipe and GUD PIPE material cost column, in light of the name of materials, size of materials at the time of purchase, unit price, etc., the above two materials appear to be materials using a pipe pipe with the same thickness, so if the length of each material is 1,650m, 576m, as in the specification of materials, it would have been 25 *2,400m pipeline sufficiently obtained the above two materials.

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated the above two materials in the material cost column for the application for decision on wages as follows * 25 2,400m pipe input ratio per material to 0.83 and 0.23 m, respectively, and appears to have unfastened material cost. The remainder aluminium cost claimed by the Defendant is difficult to be included in the material cost as it is.

Although it does not account for a large portion of material cost, the rest part of Aluminum pipe is used as a result of mixing 29 * 510m (28.5m in the material specification specification and 29 and 28.5m in the same specification, the defendant and the defense counsel use the pipe of the same specification in the application for wage decision.

* 22 * 350 m (22 * 326m in material specification) of the size at the time of purchase of the RET PIP (material costs No. 5) * 195m, the size at the time of purchase of the RET PIP (material cost No. 6) * 326m in material specification) * 19.