횡령
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
The summary of the facts charged is that, from May 8, 2013 to March 1, 2015, the Defendant, along with the victim C, operated a restaurant with the trade name “E” in Gangseo-si D, and the Defendant agreed to invest KRW 10 million in the victim, invest KRW 8 million in the house, and to prepare the house, etc., and distribute the operating revenue of the said restaurant to 50:50.
From December 2013, the Defendant embezzled of credit card payment, from around December 2013, the Defendant used agricultural cooperative accounts (Account Number:F) in the name of the Defendant from around the opening and withdrawal of operating funds of the above restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “Dong business account”), with a view to withdrawing the payment of the Samsung Card that the Defendant personally used from the above Dong business account from September 16, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 197,300 of the credit card payment from the above Dong business account.
As a result, the Defendant, while keeping the above restaurant partners in custody for the victim, embezzled them for personal purposes, and embezzled the sum of KRW 4,853,778 from that time to February 16, 2015, as shown in the attached list of crimes, 19 times, including the sum of credit card payments, from the above business account.
B. Around October 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) sold 2 string 2 miles in the market price, which was kept by the victim’s absence in the said restaurant to customers; and (b) did not enter the details thereof in the account book or deposit the sales proceeds into the said business account; and (c) voluntarily consumed the sales proceeds on a private basis at the place of business.
As a result, the Defendant embezzled 2 clocks in custody for the victim.
2. Although the defendant alleged that the defendant would pay the credit card payment used for his personal purpose from the same business account, there was a victim's understanding or consent.
In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant embezzled 2 clocks.
3. Determination A.