A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

Defendant A, from February 201 to September 201, 201, was engaged in the operation and management of the company as internal directors of the victim E Co., Ltd., Ltd., the victim of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 302.

On February 28, 2011, the Defendant, at the office of the victim company, consulted with F to raise the operating capital of the company, and borrowed KRW 135,44,00 from F on April 22, 201.

While the Defendant had been in custody of the above KRW 135,44,00 for the victim company, on April 22, 2011, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed 50,000,000 from the above company’s office to G, a corporation established by the Defendant with the investment of KRW 135,44,00 for the victim company, and embezzled it as investment money.

Defendant B is a person with the former office of a stock company E which carries on the telecommunication code business with KT company, and Defendant A is registered as an internal director of the company in question and vice president is a person with the position of vice president.

The Defendants were willing to borrow money from the victim F in order to raise business expenses to be paid to the customer inducement business operators.

On March 3, 2011, at the office of Defendant B located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H6th century, Defendant A displayed the Customer At the Customer At the Defendant’s Office, and Defendant B loaned this amount to the Victim F, “I would like to pay the principal and interest at an interest rate of 10% with the proceeds received from KT if our country is running the KT Telecommunication Code business, and the customer is required to pay the fees in advance to the business operators attracting customers,” and Defendant B also made a request for investment in money to the victim.

However, in fact, the customer attraction list presented by the defendants to the victim was a list of false customer numbers to borrow money to the victim, not the actual customer numbers, and the amount of money borrowed from the victim was not attracting the customer corresponding to the borrowed amount.