A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and six months, respectively.

except that from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Criminal Justice] On July 26, 2019, the Defendants were the crime of occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court; Defendant A was sentenced to the suspended sentence of two years and six years of imprisonment; Defendant B was sentenced to the suspended sentence of two years and three years of imprisonment, respectively; and the judgment on November 22, 2019 became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A used the name prior to the change of software development, translation, and publication from around 2011 to August 27, 2014, the victim C (hereinafter “victim C”)’s position as the Chairperson, without distinguishing between “Co., Ltd.” and “Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), and decided upon the final major policies on overall management, including personnel affairs, funds, and contracts. Defendant B, while working as the victim’s director from around 2010 to around 201, took overall charge of substantial business affairs, such as personnel affairs, funds, contracts, etc., under the direction of Defendant A, while working as the victim’s director, and E, as Defendant A’s leakage, took charge of fund management duties.

1. The facts against the employees G, H, and I dispatched from the victim company to Japanese F (F., hereinafter “F”) by releasing the benefits to the dispatched employees, Defendant A, along with B and E, planned to use them by cash after receiving the said employees and paying the monthly salary to the said employees, even if having given the monthly salary corresponding to the domestic employees, the monthly salary actually paid to the said employees is the most likely amount to be paid in consideration of the cost of stay. The monthly salary, which was paid to the said employees, was paid to the said employees as the accounts actually used by the said employees, was paid to the said employees, and the said employee was paid to the said employees to the account managed by E, and then was solicited to withdraw it in cash.

Defendant

A, B, and E, according to the above public invitation, contact B with the “F” side, and determine the salary of dispatched employees at a higher level than those in the Republic of Korea, taking into account the cost of stay, and deposit them to the victim company from the “F”. On the other hand, the dispatched employees are in Korea.