beta
Text
Defendant
A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, by a fine of KRW 5 million, and by a fine of KRW 10 million.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
C is the Vice Minister of Business of D Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of information and communications construction business (hereinafter referred to as "D"), and Defendant B is the head of the strategic business set of E Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of telecommunications construction business (hereinafter referred to as "E"), and Defendant A is the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of information and communications construction business.
Defendant
A The F, which is operated by A, is in a relationship to receive a subcontract for telecommunications work from D or E, and E is in a relationship to receive a subcontract for telecommunications work from D.
Defendant
C and Defendant B, taking advantage of their superior position to select the subcontractor of the Corporation, requested the Company to pay the construction cost in a written estimate, which serves as the basis for the preparation of the contract, to the Company, and request the Company to return part of the amount so recovered, if the Company receives the construction cost from the Company.
Defendant
A consented to the above request of the above defendant C and the defendant B with the expectation that it would be possible to receive telecommunications construction works from the above companies in the future, and prepared the construction checks more than the construction checks actually required, with the intention of providing the difference to the defendant C and the defendant B.
1. The Defendants jointly committed a contract with the Victim Company D to “G Corporation” (hereinafter “G Corporation”) around 2015 and, while performing the construction, the Defendants re-subcontracted to F for some telecommunications construction.
Defendant
C is a person who has been in charge of the management of subcontracting contracts in D companies that are victims, so the amount of construction price proposed by E in entering into a subcontract with E was reasonable and there was a occupational duty not to enter into a contract at an unfair price.
Nevertheless, around June 2015, Defendant C will unfold the construction amount of D and E to Defendant B.