The defendant and B, as a joint representative of the victim dispute resolution council, have been operating the victim company in a way of mutual settlement by paying the provisional money to the corporate account of each victim company through internal agreement and deducting the expenses incurred by the defendant from the provisional money.

However, around August 22, 2013, the Defendant purchased shares 1,000 shares of B (which correspond to 10% of the total issued shares) and paid the Defendant’s price by transferring the Defendant’s claim against the victim company B by transfer. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim for provisional deposit amounting to 150,395,360 won to B.

In addition, as of December 1, 2014, the defendant should deposit 528,348 won to the victim company in excess of the remaining provisional amount.

Although the Defendant had never been able to withdraw from the victim company as above, on December 1, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the victim company’s property by transferring KRW 99 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, and on December 30, 2014, transferred KRW 180 million of the victim company’s funds to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the victim company’s property by transferring KRW 279 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. B Legal statement;

1. (Contract for Stock Transactions)

1. A detailed statement of account transactions;

1. A statement of settlement;

1. Court rulings (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1829 Decided July 14, 2016) [2] The defendant alleged to the effect that he/she had no intention to engage in occupational embezzlement, but considering the above evidence, the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept since the defendant's failure to return the money can be found in the circumstance that he/she could be a company's financing, not an unpaid amount, in full view of the above evidence. Thus, the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept).

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.