All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized that the Defendants conspired as stated in the facts charged, such as the Defendants’ act of violation of their official duties with respect to the victimized company, and thereby, caused property damage to the victimized company by having another company engage in the transaction. Therefore, the lower court which acquitted the Defendants otherwise is erroneous in misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who works as a business director of the victim “F” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from June 2007 to February 29, 2012 and takes overall charge of business affairs, such as managing customers and contracting parties; and Defendant B is a person who works as an employee of the victimized company from November 14, 201 to January 18, 201 and is in charge of preparation, dispatch, etc. of documents.

The injured company, from March 201 to March 201, entered into a supply contract for the “Isch Rexroth case”, which is a computer case with “I”, a company in charge of purchase of “(State)G”, which is a multinational company, and received orders from H on January 201, regarding 10 of the said product.

Therefore, the Defendants, who are employees of the victimized Company, had a duty to make efforts to ensure that the victimized Company would normally supply the said product and continue the transaction with the H (State).

Nevertheless, in violation of the above occupational duties, the Defendants conspired to enter into a supply contract with H (State) H to the same company as the victimized company.

Accordingly, on January 31, 2012, Defendant A sent at the office of the victimized company, “A” at his own discretion, a “public document not to be supplied” to H.

In addition, Defendant B’s 13 conduct of Defendant B’s second 13 decision was indicated as “Defendant K,” but the correction was made as “Defendant B” on the date of the first trial of the lower court (the page of the trial record No. 81). Therefore, this part of the decision is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Service.

on December 2012.