Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years, for two years, and for one year, for Defendant C, respectively.

except that this shall not apply.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who works as the site manager of (ju), I (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) who is a cooperative company for the interior works of H, and is engaged in the work of fair management and payment of money to the subcontractor of the victimized company. Defendant C is a person who has operated the J of the Indoor Telecommunications Fisheries Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is a person who operated the K, a sales company.

1. Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust using J will take charge of the site collection of the interior of the interior in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area (ju) H directly operated by Defendant C. As if Defendant C is the actual subcontractor of the victimized company, Defendant C paid the funds of the victimized company as the payment for the construction cost, but was returned part thereof and used for personal purposes.

Defendant

A around October 2010, at the damaged company office in the fifth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan L Building, proposed that “When I deposits the construction price, it shall transfer the amount after deducting all the expenses such as value added tax, to the designated account or return it by cash” to Defendant C, and Defendant C conspired to cooperate in the act of breach of trust of the above A, subject to Defendant A’s 14% of the construction price as commission fees.

After all, Defendant A had a duty to require the victimized company to pay only the amount corresponding to the actual part of the construction work when the subcontractor claims construction work as the site manager of H T in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. However, Defendant A made a false estimate statement and sent it to Defendant C in violation of his duty, and Defendant C submitted a false statement of accounts, etc. received from Defendant A, as it did not have been performing the construction work entirely. Defendant C submitted to the victimized company the false statement of accounts, etc. received from Defendant A, even though he did not have been performing the construction work entirely.