On June 19, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Jeonju District Court (hereinafter “former District Court”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 24, 2014.

"2014 Highest 1028"

1. From July 25, 2012 to November 2, 2012, the Defendant, as an employee of the “D” in the operation of the victim C located in the large exhibition district B, has been engaged in the business of selling mobile phones and collecting charges.

A. The Defendant in occupational breach of trust has a duty to preserve the victim’s profit by receiving the mobile phone use cost from the customer and handling the business of receiving the mobile phone use cost.

Nevertheless, the Defendant opened a number of cell phones in the name of relative and branch, and used it on August 7, 2012, at the above “D office,” the Defendant, in violation of the above occupational duties, made the victim deducts the user fee of the mobile phone used by the Defendant from the commission for sales of the mobile phone that he/she should receive from the radio operator, and made the remainder to be deposited into the victim’s account by notifying the radio operator of the fact that he/she did not actually paid the user fee of the mobile phone in violation of the above occupational duties. In addition, during the period from around to October 26, 2012, the Defendant carried out the business of receiving the user fee of the mobile phone using the above method 17 times as shown in the attached Table 1 of Crimes List, thereby obtaining economic benefits equivalent to 7,83,320 won and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

B. On August 13, 2012, the defrauded did not request the Defendant to transfer mobile phone subsidies to the Nonghyup account under the name of his/her customer E, and the said account in the name of E was designated by the Defendant’s creditor to transfer money to the Defendant’s creditor. However, even though the account was designated by the Defendant’s creditor, the customer C’s mobile phone subsidies to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account.