Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

However, from the final date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A, from around 2007 to August 2013, the director in charge of IT planning division of the victim-victim D Bank in Busan Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City shall serve as the director in charge of the IT planning division, and the defendant B shall serve as the representative director of the Busan Nam-gu F Bank in charge of the order and inspection articles related to computerized expendable goods in the above department, and the defendant B shall serve as the representative director of the Busan Nam-gu Bank in Busan Metropolitan City E, and the defendants

Defendant

A has a duty to manage the ordered electronic expendable goods so that they can be used by the above department after ordering only electronic expendable goods to be actually used and examining whether goods such as the order quantity have been supplied.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, as the chief of the above general affairs division, can deal with all of the business from the request for purchase to the examination of the local currency store among the computer-consumable goods. Based on the fact that the above company in the operation of Defendant B is a trading company that supplies the computer-consumable goods to the above bank, Defendant A applied for purchase of goods in a false manner in the above bank purchase system and requested the above bank business support division to pay goods to the above company, and Defendant B conspired to acquire economic benefits by deducting 25% of the price of goods and returning the remaining amount to Defendant A.

According to the above public offering, the Defendants submitted a false purchase application to the IT planning office of the above bank around January 7, 2013, and Defendant A submitted a false purchase application to the effect that the aforementioned goods were purchased by 17 knifbp sets in violation of the above occupational duties, and as if they were supplied, it was actually registered as if they were supplied. Defendant B issued a tax invoice as if they were supplied by the above goods. Defendant B issued a tax invoice as if the above goods were supplied by the above bank business support office, and paid KRW 3,327,610 as the price of the goods not supplied by the above bank business support department of the market. The Defendants are equivalent to the same amount.