From June 12, 2006, the Defendant had been in charge of the purchase of goods as the head of the damaged company E in the main body of the victim D's management bank in the Hanam-si.

On October 23, 2008, from around February 28, 2014 to around February 28, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily embezzled KRW 10,223,240,00 in total by using the damaged company’s money in trading with six business partners, such as arbitrarily using KRW 2,70,00,00 paid from the victimized company, as if it were purchased at a price higher than the actual purchase price, and as if it were purchased at a price higher than the actual purchase price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness D, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N;

1. Recording notes;

1. A list of embezzlements by the accused (F,O, P, Q, R, and S);

1. Documents evidencing each transaction partner (1 right, 2 right) [the defendant and his defense counsel claim that the quotation unit price for T which the damaged company used as the basis for embezzlement presented to the pertinent transaction partner a low unit price for new transaction with T, so it is unreasonable to calculate its calculation. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① in case of SM 3 V purchased from F, it is clear that the difference between the defendant's purchase unit price and the ordinary unit price is 100%, and most other items are discovered; ② in case of 2008, the defendant was in charge of the purchase of goods from around 208, and the parts purchased by the defendant are not significant to change the unit price for each year. Rather, it is common to increase the unit price for each year. ③ When considering the methods, frequency, and duration of the crime of embezzlement of this case, it is limited to accurately specifying the amount of embezzlement for each transaction case, ④ in case where the defendant and the operator paid them from 100% to 200.