(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Residential Suwon City

Gyeonggi-gu in the original domicile

2. (a) Kim (67 years old, south), and non-permanent;

Housing Olsan City

Reference domicile:

Attorney Na-ju (for defendant Kim)

Defendant river was a person who had worked in the department of manufacture of hydrowon VD Business Group, the victim in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, from February 17, 1986 to October 23, 2012, and was a partner company of the victim company using the external state management system used by the victim company from July 2009 to December 201, the victim company, using the external state management system used by the victim company, and carried out the materials necessary for the production of the victim company, managed the inventory of the said materials, and engaged in material management, such as receiving the completed products.

1. Defendants

As seen above, Defendant lecture used the authority to revise the details of the materials necessary for the production of 00 electronic products and the quantity of the materials to enter, and intended to arbitrarily remove and sell the materials owned by the victim company, and made a shipment certificate by inputting the computer as if the materials were needed any more between Defendant Kim Jong, working on the 00 electronic market, and offered to dispose of the materials to Defendant Kim Young, on the face of the week.

On November 16, 2010, the defendant lecture entered the materials owned by the victim company on behalf of the victim company in the external management system as if the actual 00 e.g., ICT-2 SDRM 3,563, which was not required for the production of the products, and then separately printed out the delivery certificate for the above parts, and transferred the above parts to the defendant Kim full after being issued the above parts by presenting the delivery certificate to the 88S corporation, the materials warehouse, and the defendant Kim received it and sold them to the sstes around that time.

From that time to June 8, 2012, Defendants conspired and embezzled 707,910,390 won of the market price of the victim company as shown in attached Table 1 for 16 days in total.

2. 피고인 강피고인은 2010. 10. 8. 경 위 피해자 회사 사무실에서 재고관리를 하며 피해자 회사의 전산상 재고와 ON 전자에 남아있는 자재의 재고를 비교하여 ON 전자에 남아있지 않은 재고의 경우 00 전자에 그 대금을 청구하고, ①0 전자에 남아있는 재고의 경우 다시 피해자 회사로 반입하는 등 위 자재들을 관리할 업무상 임무에 위배하여, ① □ 전자로 지급된 자재인 solder older - wire 39, 743개가 실제로는 QQ 전자가 생산한 반제품에 포함되어 있지 않음에도 마치 ON 전자가 생산하여 피해자 회사에 입고된 제품에 위 자재가 추가로 투입된 것처럼 전산을 조작하여 전산상 QQ 전자에 해당 재고가 없는 것처럼 가장하는 방법으로 피해자 회사가 위 자재들을 ON 전자로부터 돌려받거나 0 전자에 위 자재의 대금지급을 요구하는 것을 어렵게 하였다 .

이로써 피고인은 QQ 전자에 1, 002, 373원 상당의 재산상의 이익을 취득하게 하고 , 피해자 회사에 같은 액수에 해당하는 손해를 가하는 등 그 때부터 2011. 11. 20. 까지 이와 같은 방법으로 별지 범죄일람표 2의 기재와 같이 총 1, 376회에 걸쳐 QQ 전자에 시가 512, 671, 952원 상당의 재산상의 이익을 취득하게 하고, 피해자 회사에 같은 액수의 손해를 가하였다 .

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant in the first trial record;

1. The statement in the second protocol of the trial that Defendant Kim Jong-soo partially stated [the statement to the effect that he/she obtained materials owned by the victim and sold them to s of 1% at a fixed rate of time on eight occasions from his/her river (four times from January 201 to May 201 of the same year, one time from July 7 of the same year, two times from December 1 of the same year, and one time from June 2012)];

1. Statement of the witness in the second protocol of the trial (limited to Defendant Kim);

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. An interrogation protocol of police officer in sk;

1. A complaint, a list of details of removal from the Republic of Korea without permission, each investigation report, and response to data on details of financial transactions (Evidence Lists No. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 22, and 37);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant demotion: Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the embezzlement of duties, including the embezzlement of duties), Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act (including the occupation of occupational breach of trust, including the occupation of occupational breach of trust);

B. Defendant Kim: Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355 (1), and 30 (General Provisions) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant demotion: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with heavier penalty provided for in the crime]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant Kim In Cable: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant Kim Jong-soo

1. Denial of some of the facts set forth in the judgment No. 1;

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant Kim and his defense counsel are as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 1 by Defendant Kim.

11. From around 11 to June 2012, a person was indicted of committing a crime 16 times on the basis of the date of the crime. Of that, the facts that he received the materials owned by the victim from the victim and sold to 5% on up to 8 occasions from the defendant Kim Jong-ro (one time from January 201 to May 201, 4, July 1, 201, and two times from December 201, and one time from June 2012) are recognized, but the fact that he/she did not participate in the remaining eight-time crimes.

B. Determination

판시 각 증거들에 의하면 다음과 같은 사실이 인정된다 . 1 ) 피고인 강은 피해자 회사가 이 사건 조사에 착수한 이후 경찰 3회 진술에 이르기까지 공범 없이 단독으로 범행하였다고 진술하면서, 장물 처분 경위에 대해 인터넷으로 알게 된 불상의 장물업자가 요구하는 대로 안산시까지 가서 중국인 심부름꾼을 만나 자재를 처분하였다고 진술하다가, 경찰 4회 진술 시 경찰이 자신에 대한 휴대전화 통화내역을 조회한 결과 범행 전후에 안산시에서의 통화내역이 없다는 점을 추궁하기에 이르자 비로소 피고인 김과의 공모 사실을 자백하였다 . 2 ) 피고인 강성은 이후 피고인 김과 공모하여 이 부분 범행을 저질렀음을 모두 인정하면서, 피고인 김일이 수년간 자재 계통에서 일을 하고 회사 폐업 시 자재를 매각하는 일을 해왔던 것으로 알고 있었기 때문에 피고인 김에게 이 사건 범행을 제의한 것으로, 자신은 자재 처분 방법을 알지 못하여, 이 사건 범행으로 취득한 자재는 모두 피고인 김호성이 그 처분을 담당하였다고 진술하고 있다 . 3 ) 피해자 회사의 직원인 안☆☆과 고☆☆는 피해내역을 조사하면서, 피고인 강이 전산을 수정한 당일에 자재가 반출된 경우 비정상적인 업무처리가 있었던 것으로 보고, 그 내역을 피고인 강에게 제시하여, 그 중 피고인 강이 인정한 부분만을 피해내역으로 보아 별지 범죄일람표 1을 작성하였다고 진술하고 있다 . 4 ) 피고인 강은 피해자 회사의 자체조사 당시 3회에 걸쳐 작성했던 자필진술서에서는 범행 일시와 횟수에 대해 일관되지 않게 진술한 바 있으나, 이후 피해자 회사로부터 전산에 남아있는 자료 등을 제시받고, ' 전산자료와 가지고 나간 자재코드가 맞기 때문에 범행을 인정하였으며, 이렇게 작성된 범죄일람표를 보고 범행 횟수가 생각보다 많은 것에 놀랐다 ' 고 진술하고 있다 강 ( 에 대한 증인신문조서 3쪽 ) . 5 ) 피고인 김 은 이 법정에서 이 부분 범행 중 8회를 인정하면서, 그 중 7회는 정확히 기억나지만 나머지 1회는 기억나지 않는다고 진술하고, 검찰 진술 시 별지 범죄일람표 1을 제시하자 ' 언제 무엇을 빼냈는지 몰라서 봐도 생각이 안 나고, 그저 강이 반출증과 자재를 주면 받아서 팔았을 뿐이며, 구치소에서 그 횟수를 세어봤는데 아무리 기억해 봐도 8회를 넘지 않는 것 같다 ' 고 진술하면서, 2010. 11. 및 12. 경의 범행에 관하여는 ' 2010. 9. 경 QQ 전자에 입사하였는데 업무에 익숙하지 않은 시점에서 그렇게 할 리가 없고, 피해자 회사의 재고조사가 있었을 2010. 11. 및 12. 경에 했다는게 말이 안 되며, 당시에는 강 과 친하지도 않았다 ' 고 진술하고 있다 .

The following facts revealed by the above facts of recognition, etc. (i.e.,: (a) Defendant lecture appears to have been tending to conceal the crime of pro-Japanese Kim Sung-ok; (b) Defendant lecture made a clear statement about the conspiracy with Defendant Kim Jong-chul and the role in the disposal of stolen goods taken in charge of Defendant Kim Kim Young-m, and (c) Defendant Kim Kim-maid's involvement in the disposal of embezzled goods; and (b) Defendant Kim-maid's involvement in the part acknowledged as he/she participated in the disposal of the embezzled goods; and (c) Defendant Kim-h merely asserted eight times in accordance with his/her own memory; (d) there is no clear basis for the part recognized and denied; (e) this part of the crime was presented by the company of the Gangwon-gu victim of this case on the same day, and its contents were supported by objective data. In light of the fact that the contents of the crime were supported by objective data, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant Kim participated in all of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

2. The argument that the crime of embezzlement is not established as to the facts No. 1 in the judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

In this case, Defendant Kim Jong-soo and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant Kim Jong-soo did not constitute the crime of embezzlement even inasmuch as Defendant Kim participated in the disposal of stolen goods, and that the printing of a false withdrawal certificate was presented to the material controlled entity and received the materials from the material manager, and that it cannot be viewed as a person who keeps the above materials. However, since Defendant Kim Jae- has taken it over by deceiving 8SS Co., Ltd., a person who keeps the materials and received it, it is not the crime of embezzlement.

B. Determination

1) First of all, as to whether Defendant river was in the position of a person who takes custody of another’s property as to the instant materials, the following facts can be acknowledged according to each evidence of the judgment. The victim company subcontracted the production of a part of the instant materials to a collaborative company such as 00 e-mail, and directly supplied the required materials to the collaborative company, and made 88 E-S corporation keep the materials for this purpose.

B) While taking charge of the management and entry of the above materials, Defendant river entered the information requested by the production department by accessing the material management system of the victim company at the time of the request for the product, and if the list of corresponding parts is extracted, the request was made to the 88S corporation for the release of the above materials. Defendant river entered the reply that the preparation for delivery was made by the 88S corporation thereafter, and printed out the certificate of release, and delivered it to the subcontractor’s employees, and the 88S corporation’s employees received the materials by presenting the certificate of release to the 88S corporation.

C) The Defendant lecture did not obtain approval or supervision from the superior in the process of carrying out and managing the above materials, and carried out the work ex officio.

According to the above facts, the defendant lecture appears to have exercised the prior authority to determine whether to enter or withdraw materials as a material manager of the victim company. The 88SS corporation only carried out the materials in accordance with the contents upon the request from the defendant lecture, and it does not appear that it did not have the authority to examine the request for ex-factory and determine whether to release materials.

The authority to add or reduce the materials put into the cooperation company for robbery is the person in charge of the same materials as himself/herself, and 88 E.S. corporation takes out the materials mechanically upon presentation of the materials, so it is difficult to 88 E.S. corporation to consider that it has an independent disposal authority for the materials (the protocol of examination of witness as to lectures).

In full view of these points, Defendant Gangseo-gu was in the position of controlling and managing whether the materials owned by the victim company stored in 88 Es. are deposited and released, and this constitutes "a person who keeps another's property" in embezzlement.

2) Next, as to whether Defendant Kim Jong-il participated in this part of the crime, the following facts are acknowledged by the statement of the Defendants. In other words, the crime of this part is proposed to present the crime of this case by asking whether Defendant Kang Young-k will be able to dispose of the materials from the victim's company if the materials were taken out from the victim's company, and the consent was commenced at the time of Defendant Kim Kim-k's approval (an examination protocol, etc. of the prosecutor's protocol, etc. against Defendant Kim Young-k), Defendant Kim received the materials taken out from Defendant Kim Jong-k after then, disposed of them, and divided the profits therefrom into the Defendant's lecture, and designated items suitable for disposal, Defendant Kim Jong-k contributed to the realization of this part's embezzlement as a co-processing intention for the crime of embezzlement proposed by Defendant Kang-k, so it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant Kim Jong-k participated in this part of the crime of this part.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of Defendant Kim Jong-soo.

3. The assertion that the facts set forth in the judgment No. 1 are not a blanket crime;

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant Kim Jong and his defense counsel asserted that since there exists a considerable interval between each crime committed from November 2010 to June 2012 with respect to this part of the crime, it cannot be viewed as a single comprehensive crime under the single criminal intent.

B. Determination

Even if multiple occupational embezzlements constitute a single legal interest, when it is recognized that the form of a crime is identical, and that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is reasonable to view that the act is a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005, etc.). In this case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence of each judgment, i.e., (i) the embezzlement of materials owned by the victim company; (ii) the legal interest of the victim company is the same; (iii) if the defendant lecture, who was in charge of material management by the victim company, takes out materials by manipulating electronic computer and making a false shipment; and (iii) the attitude of the crime is the same as the disposal of the defendant Kim Il-sung; and (iv) the continuity and continuity of the criminal intent is recognized in that it is a crime committed continuously over 16 days from around November 201 to June 2012, this part of the crime is a single comprehensive crime.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of Defendant Kim Jong-il and the defense counsel.

Grounds for sentencing

1. The demotion of Defendant; (a) The scope of applicable sentences under law;

From 3 years to 45 years of imprisonment.

B. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement) and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) which are the basic crimes according to the sentencing guidelines are as follows:

[Determination of Type] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: In cases where the method of punishment is extremely poor, the reduction factor is not subject to punishment.

[Scope of Recommendations] Imprisonment of two years to five years (basic areas)

[General Aggravation] Aggravation : In the case of embezzlement, (limited to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) 2) guidelines for multiple crimes

From three to seven years of imprisonment [the upper limit] [the upper limit is 5 years + (5 years + x 1/2 in five years)], and the lower limit of the sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is lower than the statutory applicable sentences, so the sentencing guidelines are lower than the statutory applicable sentences]. Determination of sentence shall be made according to the statutory applicable sentences.

In light of the fact that the Defendant, while working as a personnel in charge of material management of the victim company, embezzled the opportunity to exercise his/her own authority without being instructed or supervised on the entry and transfer of materials, and prevented the victim company from exercising its rights to the materials equivalent to KRW 500 million to the cooperation company. In the process, the Defendant’s strict punishment may not be imposed on the Defendant, taking into account that: (a) he/she emblings the opportunity to exercise his/her own authority without being instructed or supervised on the entry and transfer of materials; and (b) made the victim company unable to exercise his/her rights to the materials equivalent to KRW 500 million to the cooperation company; (c) fabricated the computer system; and (d) made the accomplice take part in the crime

However, the punishment against the defendant shall be determined by taking into consideration all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant fully recognized the crime, the victim company does not want the punishment against the defendant, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except once a fine, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc.

2. Defendant Kim Kim

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

From 1 to 15 years of imprisonment; or

(b) Scope of sentence by the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Type] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: Cases where the method of punishment is very poor

[Scope of Recommendation and Punishment] Three years of imprisonment or six years of imprisonment (aggravating area)

[General Aggravation] Aggravations: In the case of embezzlement crime

(c) Determination of sentence;

Considering the following: (a) the Defendant, along with his accomplices, embezzled large assets worth KRW 700 million over a long-term period; (b) led the disposal of stolen goods to promote the accomplice’s crime; and (c) the poor nature of the crime; and (d) the amount of large-amount embezzlement damage has not been recovered, the Defendant may not be subject to strict punishment.

However, the fact that the defendant partially recognized the crime of this case, the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime is relatively excessive, and in some cases, the defendant refused his proposal of accomplice and did not refuse his repeated request, and the defendant continued to commit the crime. The defendant deposited KRW 40,000,000 to the victim company, the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment other than a fine once, and the defendant determined the punishment against the defendant by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the background of the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the age of the defendant, character and conduct, family environment, etc., and it is determined that the minimum of the sentencing range of the recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines (three years of imprisonment) is somewhat high, and therefore, the punishment against the defendant shall be determined within the scope of the punishment by law.

Jeon Tae-ge

Number of vacations