Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for three years, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A is the director of C, who is a grain distributor of rice, etc., and Defendant B is the team leader of C, who was in exclusive charge of rice transaction-related affairs between the victim corporation D and C.

On June 2016, the Defendants proposed that “C may supply rice to H (hereinafter “H”) as its subsidiary director E and director F of the Victim Company,” “C may supply rice to H (hereinafter “H”). The buyer is a G organization and the rice supplied to H does not have to know about the amount of military payment. As the financial standing is insufficient, if rice is supplied to C, it will be supplied to H and pay the amount of rice.” In response to this, the victim company concluded a rice supply contract between C and the victim company.

Criminal facts

The Defendants, according to the contract entered into as above from June 2016 to October 20 of the same year, sold most of the rice actually supplied by the victim company from the victim company to the victim company, unlike the original contract terms and conditions, to H, not H, a subsidiary of the G organization, but to the I Co., Ltd., an agricultural company (hereinafter “agricultural company”), a general customer of the G organization, even though the transaction with H was suspended even around October 2016, the Defendants attempted to acquire the rice by deceiving the victim company that believed that payment would be done without any problem, instead of notifying the victim company of such fact and by deceiving the victim company to acquire the rice more than the existing supply.

Accordingly, Defendant B issued an order for rice with the victim company as of November 2016, which stated that “If the amount of rice supplied increases more than two times since the end of the year and H increased the amount of rice supplied, Defendant B would pay the amount without molding it.”

However, in fact, the Defendants paid for most of the rice supplied from the victim company from the beginning.