When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant was employed as an associate professor in the Department B C of the Victim B, and has been engaged in the education of students and the performance of research service tasks awarded by enterprises, etc.

On February 11, 2014, the Defendant was engaged in the above duties, and was in possession of a D card, which is a victim's name card, from the victim's corporation (credit number E).

In such cases, the defendant has a duty to use the above corporation card only for the purpose and purpose of the business, such as meeting expenses and withdrawing equipment related to the above business, and to not use the corporation card for private purposes.

Nevertheless, around July 1, 2017, the Defendant obtained a corporate card from a “F” hotel located in California, California, and paid 285,382 won with the said corporate card. From that time to June 26, 2019, the Defendant used the corporate card at the hotel, etc. of Seoul and Busan for a total of 51 times, as indicated in the attached crime list, to obtain a total of 11,26,086 won and suffered a damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim corporation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's legal statement G, issuance status of each police officer's written statement of statement of H, provision of a card for support of research expenses for the settlement of research tasks, usage of legal cards by hotel, recording records (I), recording records, records of the execution of weekend meetings, response data (K, L, and J);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant used the victim corporation card in violation of his/her occupational duty is not less than that of the crime, but it seems that the perception that the corporation card is used in violation of his/her occupational duty is not definite.