The defendant is a person who engages in construction business in C mutually.

On May 8, 2014, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with E on July 13, 2013, with respect to the construction cost of KRW 75 million for the construction work during the extension of the Sejong-dong Hospital located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong, and between E, from July 30, 2013 to January 30, 2014; the progress payment of KRW 6 million for advance payment; KRW 13 million for the first intermediate payment; KRW 19 million for the installation of heating pipes; KRW 19 million for the installation of boiler; and KRW 18 million for the installation of boiler, etc. within one month after the completion of construction.

Thus, while E has completed the construction work within the construction period, but it has failed to settle the difference between the Defendant and the other party, E submitted a written confirmation that 4 million won should be paid to the Victim Life-sustaining Foundation, the owner of the construction. On May 8, 2014, the victim paid 4 million won to the Defendant, the contractor, and delivered it to E in accordance with the written confirmation. However, the Defendant embezzled by consuming it by means of paying the construction cost to other sub-contractors without delivering it to E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Investigation report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in a standard construction subcontract agreement;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. On the ground that Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code provides that the Defendant would not be at issue since he/she has his/her own claim without accurate legal knowledge, it seems that the instant crime was committed.

In addition, the amount of damage caused by the crime is rarely limited to the claim for the construction cost against the victim and the actual damage seems to exist, and efforts are made to agree with E.