When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The above order the defendants to make a provisional payment of the amount equivalent to each fine.

Defendant 3 is not guilty.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 3 shall be publicly announced.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Occupational embezzlement;

On September 1, 2008, the Defendant was selected as a participating enterprise in the project to discover and foster new growth engine projects in Gangwon-do, along with the ○ University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, ○ University, the participating institution, Dong-si, and Dong-si, which is the main institution. Accordingly, the Defendant was provided with KRW 30,000,000 for the development of technology by voluntarily bearing KRW 94,60,000 for private financing, including goods and cash.

Meanwhile, the Defendant received the first technology development cost of KRW 16,00,000 from April 3, 2009 to Defendant 2’s corporate account, and transferred the said money to the new bank account of Defendant 2 for the said corporate entity, and embezzled an amount equivalent to the said amount by consuming the said money for private purposes, such as the settlement of credit card payment, from the 6th of the same month to the 27th of the same month.

(b) Violation of the Food Sanitation Act;

No one shall sell, collect, manufacture, import, process, use, cook, cook, store, subdivide, transport or display for the purpose of sale, foods containing or harmful substances or foods, additives, etc. which are or may be adhered to such foods, additives, etc.

1) On February 28, 2011, the Defendant purchased 1,050kgs for Chinese marijuana, which contains hazardous substances (THC) ingredients, as narcotics, etc. from the “Tmenen Liven Liber. Co, Ltd,” and imported them for sale in the Republic of Korea.

2) From March 7, 2011 to June 28, 2011, the Defendant subdivided 500ml into 1,440 glass bottles for the purpose of selling the total amount of the marijuries imported at Defendant 2’s office located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) as above.

3) From March 8, 2011 to August 9, 2011, the Defendant sold an amount equivalent to KRW 40,459,650, which was subdivided as above, to the nationwide △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “mari-si”).

2. Defendant 2 corporation

At the time and place indicated in the above 1-B, the above defendant 1, the representative director of the defendant, imported, subdivided, sold marijuana spawn on the defendant's business.

1. Statement of the police statement against Defendant 3;

1. Each internal investigation report (for example, No. 8,9,13) and investigation report (for example, No. 145)

1. Each reply to the request for appraisal (number 12, 21, 84), reference inquiry statement (number 156);

1. Certificate of import declaration (No. 33), production work records (No. 63, 64, 68), copy of support for technical development expenses to Defendant 2 Company (No. 73), copy of the name of new bank account (No. 140), and copy of the non-indicted 1 new bank account (No. 141)

The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not impose any restriction on the purpose of use or method of use of the above subsidy at ○○ University Industry Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “instant project”) in charge of the △△△△ in the East Sea, and that the Defendant transferred the above subsidy to the Defendant’s account and used it for other purposes, but the Defendant returned it to the account of the said company to the account of the said company to use it for the said business purpose. As such, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement.

However, according to the above evidence, while the defendant was in business custody for the defendant 2, he was found to have used the amount transferred to the account of his wife unrelated to the business of the above company for private purposes such as payment of credit card price and payment of personal debt (the investigation record 1685, 1688, 1818, 1838), since the victim of the above criminal facts is the defendant 2 corporation, the crime of embezzlement against the above company is established immediately on the sole basis of the above facts of recognition, and even if the defendant returned the amount used again to the above company to the account of the above company to use it for the business purpose of this case, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of embezzlement.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the content of the tetrarovia (THC) component contained in the foregoing hemp clocks falls short of the content that can be seen as a clock, so it cannot be deemed as a hazardous substance, and that there was no intention since it was judged that it was not a hazardous substance.

However, according to the above evidence, the tetraromanium (THC) ingredients contained in the above hemp clock cannot be deemed to be the extreme amount, and the tetraromanium (THC) and the tetraromanium (THC) are substances causing the cryp effect in marijuana, so it can be deemed to be a harmful substance per se. If the above marijuana clock contains such a hazardous substance, regardless of its content, it can be deemed to be a "food containing a hazardous substance" as prescribed in subparagraph 2 of Article 4 of the Food Sanitation Act (at least, it can be deemed to be a "food containing a hazardous substance" as prescribed in subparagraph 2 of Article 4 of the Food Sanitation Act, regardless of its content).

In addition, at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office on January 23, 2009, the Defendant received a decision that he was suspected of committing the act of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (mariana) and the act of violation of the Food Sanitation Act (THC) on the ground that, at the police's request on April 25, 2008, the Defendant did not have any evidence to recognize that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant constituted a hazardous food or an article the importation of which is prohibited, before the detection of the tetrarac (THC) ingredients from the mac on the same date (e.g., the investigation record 53 pages). Thus, at the time of the decision that the Defendant was not guilty, the Defendant did not have any intention at the time of committing the act of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Defendant 1: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement), Article 94 Subparag. 1, and Article 4 Subparag. 2 of the Food Sanitation Act (the point of import, subdivision and sale of foods containing harmful substances), and each of the fines for negligence.

Defendant 2: The main sentence of Article 100, Article 94 subparag. 1, and Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Food Sanitation Act, and the selection of fines.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 3 as the head of ○○ University Industrial Cooperation Center, was selected as a subsidized project operator by submitting the project plan of this case along with Dong Sea-si in connection with the construction of the foundation for the new growth engine project of Gangwon-do. In executing the above subsidy project, the use determined by the guidelines for the operation of the Gangwon-do new growth engine project shall be followed.

However, while exercising overall control over the execution and management of the subsidized project cost of KRW 300,000,000, which is strictly limited for the purpose of use provided by Gangwon-do and the East Sea, the Defendant, while keeping the above funds for the above school for business purposes, has limited the direct project cost to the cost directly required for the support of the enterprise. However, the Defendant voluntarily provided some of the funds to the Small and Medium Business Administration-invested Business Start-up Support Project and the person who applied for the promotion project of preliminary technology start-up founders

In addition, on March 24, 2009, the Defendant embezzled KRW 4,200,00 as the charge for the founder of the business for supporting the Defendant’s laboratory start-up, and KRW 5,00,000 as the charge for the charge for the business for promoting the start-up of the spare technology by Nonindicted 2 on April 3, 2009, and KRW 4,200,000 as the charge for the business for promoting the start-up of the laboratory start-up by Nonindicted 3 on May 21, 2009.

2. Determination:

As above, the defendant asserts that the subsidization of the corporate support fund with the business start-up charge does not correspond to the purpose of the use of the business support fund set out in the business in this case.

On the instant business plan submitted by the ○○ University as an institution in charge of the instant business, the business objective of the “enterprise support” is “enterprise support necessary for the construction of the foundation for the new growth engine industry”, “business start-up and conversion-up for the production of products”, and the performance objective is “not less than four occupancys in the establishment and childcare center” (in fact, the investigation record 255, 295 page), Defendant, Nonindicted 2, and 3’s start-up support for the establishment of a start-up business related to △△△ to foster the instant business (the investigation record 146, 1189 page), and Gangwon-do’s new growth engine business operation guidelines for the operation of the support project for the discovery and promotion of new growth engine businesses in Gangwon-do also include the business support funds directly required for the business support in the region other than the institution in charge and participating organizations, and there is no clear evidence to exclude the business support funds from the purpose of the Defendant’s contribution to the establishment of a start-up business (the above 1613).

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

Completion of Judge

1) According to the fact-finding report by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, the tetraccium (THC) may be displayed when using 0.12§¯ per kilogramme. According to the police appraisal request (Investigation Records 93 pages) pursuant to the police appraisal request (Investigation Records), since the tetracium (THC) was detected in the tetracium (THC) where the content reaches 10.49 m/mar (i.e., x/mar) on the tetracium, the tetracium (THC) is sufficiently likely to cause tetraculation, depending on the body weight, physical constitution, and dun capacity of the arc of this case.