업무상횡령
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Facts charged;
A. Defendant A is the representative of Suwon-si EF childcare center in Suwon-si, who is in charge of the affairs of the above childcare center, and Defendant B is the head of the above FF childcare center in charge of the management and operation of the childcare center, the execution of the budget, etc.
Defendant
B kept the budget, such as childcare fees, around January 24, 2013, Defendant A and Defendant B did not use G vehicle purchased for the purpose of commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center, used it for Defendant B’s commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center, and disbursed the expenses for vehicle management, such as oil value, in the budget of the childcare center. On January 24, 2013, Defendant B offered that “A vehicle purchased for the purpose of commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center shall be disbursed as the budget of the childcare center.”
In addition, the Defendants conspired with the above similar method from the time to June 26, 2013, and used the subsidies by using them as vehicle management expenses at their own discretion while keeping childcare fees, etc. more than 17 times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table 1.
B. Defendant A is the representative of Suwon-gu EF childcare center in charge of the affairs of the above childcare center, and Defendant B is the director of the above childcare center in charge of the management, operation, budget execution, etc. of the childcare center.
Defendant
B kept the budget, such as childcare fees, around January 24, 2013, Defendant A and Defendant B did not use G vehicle purchased for the purpose of commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center, used it for Defendant B’s commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center, and disbursed the expenses for vehicle management, such as oil value, in the budget of the childcare center. On January 24, 2013, Defendant B offered that “A vehicle purchased for the purpose of commuting to and from the workplace of the childcare center shall be disbursed as the budget of the childcare center.”
Defendants.