In 2001, the Defendant jointly established the Victim D Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “victim D Co., Ltd”) by investing KRW 600 million with C, etc. at the end of 2001. From August 17, 2007, the Defendant was in charge of overall affairs such as financial management as the representative director of the said company.

From November 12, 2010 to March 10, 201, the Defendant transferred 50 million US dollars 300,000 to F, and received 300,000 US dollars (330,000,000 US dollars) from the local investment corporation in Vietnam, a local investment corporation in Vietnam, owned by the victim of the victim, from Vietnam, at a non-cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria located in the Shinan City, from November 12, 2010 to March 10, 201, the Defendant used the above 300,000 US dollars at will as personal debt.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. C Legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. A complaint;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. Contracts for transfer of stocks;

1. A written agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (the place of crime and the detailed details of the amount of embezzlement);

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts at issue, the Defendant and his defense counsel received USD 300,000 from F as stated in the facts charged at issue, but the Defendant operated at the time.

G Through G, the Defendant’s individual used insufficient expenses to export the machinery, thereby having personal claims of at least US$300,000 against the victim company. However, the Defendant asserted to the effect that it does not constitute occupational embezzlement, since the Defendant received the said stock transfer price and appropriated it for the repayment of claims received from the victim company.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, the Defendant.