A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of ten months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

[Criminal Power] On November 25, 2014, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendants, as pro-Japanese, worked as the president (representative) of the Victim D Limited Corporation in China, and Defendant B as the president of the damaged company.

1. Around June 2008 to August 2008, the Defendants conspired to transfer the cash received from the sales price of the products to the personal account managed by Defendant A through the clearing machine operator, while the Defendants were operating the damaged company. In order to evade the tax of the victimized company, the victimized company conspired to divert the cash received from the sales price of the products to the personal account managed by Defendant A.

Accordingly, around November 13, 2008, Defendant B transferred KRW 15,000,000, out of the sales price of the product owned by the victimized company that was kept in cash in the above office’s treasury, to E through the Chinese exchange organizer, who is an employee of the company operated by Defendant A, and demanded the said E to re-deposit the said money into the name of the Nonghyup Bank (G) managed by Defendant A. From that time to November 25, 2008, Defendant B deposited KRW 129,521,000 more than 10 times in total as shown in the annexed crime list 1 as shown in the annexed crime list 1, and Defendant A embezzled the money received at that time by using the same time as the operating fund of H that company operated separately.

2. On August 10, 2008, the Defendants embezzled money under the pretext of the purchase price of false oil, and purchased oil tax invoices by means of pretending that the injured company purchased oil in spite of the absence of the fact that the injured company purchased oil from the Chinese business partner, and received from the above business partner the remaining money excluding certain fees from the above business partner, and then Defendant B kept the same in the course of business.