A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B does not pay the above fine.

Defendant

A on March 19, 2012, after having been sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. in the Changwon District Court Msan Branch, the execution of the sentence was terminated in the lawsuit of two North Korean Dos on October 7, 2013.

[2016 Highest 17] Defendants

1. Defendant A from October 22, 2013 to the victim H Co., Ltd., the representative director of Changwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, has been working for the Corporation as the head of the department and has overall control over the orders, management, supervision, etc. of electrical construction. The fact that Defendant A received orders from G even though he did not have ordered construction.

In the name of the victim, he ordered the electrical cables to the electrical company instead of the company in 76, which is located in the new wall market of the Gangseo-gu Busan in the name of the victim, and received them and received them at will to dispose of them at will.

A. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to G that he had not ordered the construction work from I; (b) issued an electric cable replacement contract with I’s power cable replacement contract with the introduction of the chairman of the Labor Steering Committee of the Treatment Marine Shipbuilding; and (c) issued an electric cable contract with the market price of KRW 24,200,550 in the name of the victim in the name of the victim in lieu of the above corporation, and kept the Defendant directly as the victim’s vehicle for business purposes; (d) on the same day, the Defendant arbitrarily sold approximately KRW 1,00,000,000 on the mutual infinite side of the Sinnam-nam Cable Complex on the same day, and at his own discretion from November 12, 2013 to January 1, 2014, at the same time, sold the total amount of KRW 36,384,788,700 in the attached Form I by the aforementioned method.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

B. On October 2013, the Defendant in breach of occupational duty received one copy of Hyundai Card J, which is a corporation card to be used as expenses related to the construction from G from the above victim’s office in the middle of October 2013, and thus, despite the existence of an occupational duty to be used for the victim, the Defendant’s duty on October 23, 2013.