Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months, each of the defendants B, C, D, and E shall be punished by six months of imprisonment, and the defendants F, G, and H shall be punished by each fine.

Punishment of the crime

[In fact, Defendant A is a motor vehicle management businessman who runs the automobile maintenance business in the name of “L” from around June 2007 to the date of “L”, and Defendant B is a motor vehicle management businessman who runs the motor vehicle maintenance business in “L” from February 2, 2014 to December 2, 2014, and Defendant C is a motor vehicle management businessman who runs the motor vehicle maintenance business from around June 2016 to the date of “N” with the trade name of “N” in the Daegu Dong-gu M.

Defendant

F is the team leader of the “O” director; Defendant D is the team leader of the “P” director; Defendant E is the team leader of the “P” director; Defendant G is the team leader of the “P” director; Defendant G is the “R” director; Defendant H is the “S” director.

[Criminal facts]

1. Violation of the Automobile Management Act;

(a) A motor vehicle management business operator shall not receive illicit money or conduct other illicit acts in relation to the business concerned;

Nevertheless, the Defendant promised the towing engineer to pay the business expenses such as rebates and subsidies equivalent to 15 to 20% of the official fees, call expenses, oil supply expenses, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “cover value”) at the time of towing the vehicle into “L”, and paid KRW 11,360,000 to the towing engineer D, etc. on February 2014, the Defendant accepted unjust money and valuables related to the automobile management business.

In addition, from around that time to January 2017, the Defendant paid money and valuables equivalent to KRW 622,751,660 in total as shown in attached Table 1.

Accordingly, the defendant received illegal money in relation to the automobile management business.

(b) No defendant B motor vehicle management business operator shall receive illicit money or conduct other illicit acts in relation to the business concerned;

Nevertheless, the Defendant promised the towing engineer to pay the business expenses (i.e., rebates and subsidies equivalent to 15 to 20% of the official fees, call expenses, and oil supply expenses, etc. (i.e., hereinafter referred to as “cinfic value”) at the time of towing an accident vehicle into “L” and (ii) to the towing engineer on March 2014.