From December 2, 2018 to January 21, 2020, the Defendant, as a joint representative of the Victim C Claim Group (hereinafter “Credit Group”) comprised of the Seo-gu Corporation B companies in Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and was engaged in the affairs of keeping the construction price received from the principal contractor and settling the accounts to the members of the Claim Group.

On January 31, 2019, the Defendant received KRW 389,51,518, which is part of the construction price, from D Co., Ltd., a principal contractor, in the name of the Defendant, and kept it in custody, and used KRW 25,000,000 for personal purposes by transferring KRW 15,00,000 for three months’ wages as stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation and the Agreement on Remuneration.

In addition, from around that time to December 8, 2019, the Defendant spent a total of KRW 174,900,000 on 15 occasions, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes, while the Defendant kept the construction cost that was paid to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant for the bond group, as seen above, from around that time to around December 8, 2019.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the claim group in the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the claims of the police statement of F and G, the articles of association, agreements, copies of bankbooks, and investigation reports on details of transactions ( telephone conversations with the H of a reference witness);

1. The summary of the argument of the determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel regarding the pertinent provision of the relevant criminal facts and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment (consumptive to imprisonment), is that the Defendant either paid part of the construction cost received from D as the wages of the officers of the claim group, or intended repayment and borrowed with the consent of the claim group.

Therefore, there is no intention to acquire illegal embezzlement against the defendant.

2. Determination

(a) Illegal obtaining intent of the relevant legal doctrine is kept for the purpose of seeking the interest of himself or any third party.