From January 16, 2012, the Defendant served as the representative director of C, a victimized company, and has been engaged in the management of overall business and company funds.

1. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant, at an enterprise bank account (E) in the name of the victimized company in the name of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and A Dong 3, remitted KRW 5,00,000 to the bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant in the name of the victimized company, and embezzled KRW 365,95,428 in total over 211 times from the above date to April 30, 2014, as shown in attached Table 1, as shown in attached Table 1, from the above date and time to April 30, 2014.

2. On September 26, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 2,500,000 from G requesting the production of a wood model from the victimized company in the name of the Defendant, and embezzled KRW 24,800,000,000, in the same way between the said date and October 22, 2013, as shown in attached Table 2, by deposit of KRW 24,80,000 in the same way between the said date and time from October 22, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 7,90,000 among them into the victimized company account, and embezzled KRW 16,90,000,000, which is the difference for personal use.

3. From January 13, 2013 to July 20, 2014, the Defendant violated his/her duty, despite the existence of the occupational duty to use the corporate card (H) in the name of the victimized company for the damaged company, and thereby, in violation of his/her duty, paid the interest rate of KRW 12,000,00 from the “J” located in Young-si District I 106, as well as from January 13, 2013 to July 20, 2014, the Defendant used the amount equivalent to KRW 3,814,820 in the same way as shown in the attached Table 3 for personal purposes, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said money and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victimized company.

The court shall defend the defendant in a case where the criminal facts that are not heavier than those contained in the facts charged are acknowledged within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized.