On February 1, 2012, the Defendant, who became a director in charge of the Home shopping business division until May 29, 2015, which was the date of retirement, was a person who was in charge of the Home shopping business and was in charge of the Home shopping business, and was in charge of the main duty to prevent damage to the victims in connection with Home shopping business.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above E office on January 29, 2013, transferred KRW 22,00,00 to “H”, the victim’s account as the representative of G, even though the victim did not have an obligation to pay advertising photographing expenses or did not actually photograph the advertising photographing expenses, and subsequently, transferred the amount of KRW 22,00,00 from the victim’s account to “H” under the name of “advertising photographing expenses,” and then received a return individually from the above G, as shown in the attached list of crimes (section 10) (section 10), such as the one returned from January 29, 2013 to May 2, 2014, the Defendant acquired the property interest of KRW 11,289,459 in total five times from January 29, 2013 to May 2, 2014, and caused the victim’s property damage equivalent to the same amount.

The Defendant, on February 1, 2012, 2017, is a person who became a director in charge of the Home shopping division by May 29, 2015, who was employed in the victim E company located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was in charge of the Home shopping division by May 29, 2015, and was in charge of the Home shopping division.

According to the total sales contract entered into between the victim and I, the victim and I agreed to bear all the expenses related to the Home shopping sales in the J Jeondong Agency, and the victim does not have a duty to bear the cost of home shopping broadcast, etc., and the "H", which is the representative of the defendant's main office, did not actually have been engaged in the business related to the sale of the previous Agency sets.

Nevertheless, on April 12, 2013, the Defendant violated the occupational duty that should not cause damage to the victim in the E office and should pay the victim the cost of broadcasting to the “H”.