업무상횡령등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
(e).
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a ship of Chinese nationality.
From June 2010 to March 2013, 2013, the Defendant was living together with the victim D, who was born in the Republic of Korea, and the victim D was a public official belonging to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and upon the Defendant’s request from the Defendant to submit business registration under the name of the Defendant in order to facilitate the permanent residence of the Republic of Korea,” and on January 12, 2013, the “F golf practice range” located in Daejeon Sung-gu E is opened under the name of the Defendant and the victim’s mother-friendly G co-ownership. The same year from that time.
6. Until the first patrolman, the Defendant had the Defendant manage the foregoing golf practice course business and engage in gold and expenditure business.
In the process, on February 2013, 2013, the Defendant, while engaging in a dispute with the victim due to the fact that he/she drinks with his/her guest H while drinking together with his/her guest H in the above golf driving range between him/her and her.
3. The same year when the defendant accepted a proposal to the effect that the defendant would pay 200,000 won per month of operating the above driving range until he/she takes over the operation of the above driving range, because he/she did not have any person operating the above driving range because he/she did not have any person operating the above driving range because he/she did not live together with the victim after settling his/her life together with the victim, and in consultation with the victim.
4. When the Defendant’s embezzlement of public funds amounting to KRW 18 million was discovered by confirming the balance of the account held in the account in the name of Korea bank, which is a cash receipt and disbursement book and the above business intermediary management account, the conflict was deepened because the Defendant was demanded to return the amount of embezzlement from the victim.
On May 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) returned the deposit of KRW 5 million paid by the Defendant, out of KRW 39 million, to the victim on May 31, 2013, the Defendant changed the name of the stud tenant in the name of the Defendant and the name of the business operator of the driving range.