업무상횡령
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On October 20, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim D to operate a game software development business, etc., and registered the “E” as a joint business proprietor.
Since then, the defendant kept a partner's money in the Korean bank account of the victim's name and engaged in the execution of such money.
On July 1, 2015, the Defendant brought an issue about the withdrawal of the amount of KRW 35 million from the partner without the Defendant’s consent. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant sent a “contract for termination of the business” to the victim’s side on July 12, 2015, and the victim was unable to enter the “E” office, and the dispute over the business relationship between the Defendant and the victim was deepened.
On July 12, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 9.55 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant. On July 16, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 5.5 million in the name of the attorney’s fee for the purpose of filing a complaint on the suspicion that he embezzled a partner’s money against the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D by the prosecution;
1. A detailed statement of transactions of entry and withdrawal;
1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion and determination of the contract for termination of the partnership
A. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel's transfer of the partner's money as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant does not constitute embezzlement since D voluntarily withdraws the partner's money of KRW 35 million, and the defendant filed a complaint to use D at the attorney's expense for the purpose of complying with the company's interest.
The argument is asserted.
B. According to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant and D had a conflict of opinion regarding the operation of the “E” company that is a company engaged in the same business, and at the same time, D had a condition to settle the partnership relationship through a third party around June 2015, without the consent of the Defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26804, Jul. 1, 2015>