When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant, as a joint person with C, has established D Co., Ltd., a victim agricultural company, who works as an internal director of the above corporation, and has been engaged in the sales and fund management business on a large scale.

On July 1, 2013, from around October 31, 2013 to around October 31, 2013, the Defendant created a 6 million won difference in the sales price increased by a short-term vehicle by allowing F, who is an employee, to prepare a double account book at a small amount than the actual processing volume of a short-term vehicle for the foregoing period, and used it at will around that time.

As a result, the Defendant arbitrarily embezzled the property owned by the victim during his/her business keeping.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations with company employees G);

1. A double-book in which the total number of registered matters of complaint, all certificates of corporate registration, account books, and omitted number of the number of different types of multiple books [a representative director who has personal claims against a company shall use his/her own bonds in payment of his/her own bonds on behalf of the company does not constitute an act of self-transaction in which the interests of the company and directors conflict. Thus, even if the representative director pays his/her bonds to his/her own company without following the procedure such as approval of the board of directors, it is valid as the act of performance of the company's obligations within the representative director's authority, and thus, he/she cannot be held liable for embezzlement because he/she did not recognize his/her intent of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2296, Feb. 23, 1999). In this case, the defendant is not the representative director of the victim company, and the materials submitted by the defendant alone are not clear whether the defendant has a claim equivalent to the same amount with respect to the victim company.