The Defendant, as a business director of the Victim (State) E located in Yangju City from July 2013 to July 2017, 2017, has been engaged in the business, sales and management of the said company and the collection of proceeds.

On February 24, 2014, the Defendant used 297,211,100 won in total from the account in the name of the said Defendant or the corporate bank account (Account Number: I) in the name of H company established by the said Defendant on behalf of the said victim company for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. around that time. From that time to May 23, 2017, the Defendant used the goods amounting to KRW 297,211,10 in total for eight eight times as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the crime committed.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the police against J;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Complaints for the preparation of E-stock company;

1. Monthly payable;

1. A list of total tax invoices;

1. A detailed statement of each deposit transaction, details of bank transaction, and account transaction;

1. The list of embezzlements claimed by the complainant, including the details of embezzlements by transaction partner;

1. A list of delivery, the place of delivery and delivery, and the list of crimes;

1. The place where the goods are delivered;

1. Documents appended to L-related differences and a detailed statement of closing (L 2016, 2017);

1. An electronic tax invoice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a transaction statement traded with H;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 355 (1) and 355 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against occupational embezzlement as of May 2, 2014, with the largest number of concurrent crimes) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against occupational embezzlement) is that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is large as KRW 297,21,100, and even if so, a considerable portion of the amount of damage is not restored.