From March 23, 2005, the Defendant has been engaged in overall management of the contracts of the company, such as site management, customer contract consultation, etc., as the chief of office in Daejeon-gu building, and in D, Inc., the victim C in the second floor.

On June 29, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 29 million from F, a customer, to the account of the National Bank (G) in the name of the Defendant’s name, in connection with the Rotterdam project, for the use of the Rotterdam project. However, the Defendant used KRW 25 million for the personal purpose of the Defendant, such as living expenses, etc., at around that time, when he/she was transferred to the Agricultural Bank (H) account in the name of the Defendant.

From around that time to October 12, 2017, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by voluntarily consuming the difference of the construction cost actually received from the customer as shown in the List of Crimes, and voluntarily consuming the difference to the victim, or reporting as if the construction contract was concluded with the customer at an amount less than the amount of the construction contract actually paid to the customer, and then voluntarily consuming the difference between the construction cost actually collected from the customer and the construction cost remitted to the victim 14 times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A complaint (the details of outstanding amounts, customer-related data (I,F, J, K, L, M, N,O, cost settlement, purchase status, purchase transaction details) and transaction details);

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, as well as the instant trial process, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, family environment, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime, etc., in the following circumstances: (a) the sentencing of sentence of imprisonment is based on the reason for sentencing.