1. On March 201, the Defendants and the victims agreed to operate a mobile phone sales store with the victim D, and set up a store with the victim’s trade name “E” among the initial opening cost of KRW 145 million, and the Defendants’ remaining investment and distributed profits to the victim and the Defendants each at KRW 4:3:3.

However, the actual operation of the store is to be exclusively carried out by the defendants, but the victim agreed to receive only the distribution according to the profit ratio among the monthly profits without participating in it, and the defendants became in charge of daily fund management of the store.

2. On July 11, 2011, Defendant A embezzled money of KRW 2,075,50, out of the money in his/her business custody for the victim who is a partner, at “E” store located on the first floor of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building, by means of the transfer of KRW 2,075,50, among the money in his/her business custody for the victim who is a partner, at his/her own discretion, from around that time to July 17, 2012, Defendant A embezzled money of KRW 6,851,51 on a total sum over 12 occasions, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1).

3. On April 12, 201, at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph, Defendant B embezzled the sum of KRW 4,395,804 on 14 occasions from around that time to August 2012, 201, including arbitrarily transferring KRW 120,500, out of the money in the course of business for the victim, who is a partner, by means of the fact that he/she takes charge of operating the store as above and keeps the funds in the account under the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The fact that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement for the reason of innocence is that the prosecutor is required to prove, and the burden of proof causes a judge to have no reasonable doubt.