Of the facts charged in the instant case, occupational embezzlement against victim E.

[Business embezzlement against Victim F Co., Ltd.] The Defendant, from July 22, 2005, has overall control over the company's business as the actual operator of Victim F Co., Ltd. in Dong Sea from July 2, 2005.

From January 17, 2007 to May 28, 2008, the Defendant embezzled total of KRW 275,210,000,00 as indicated in the annexed Table of Crimes (1) from January 17, 2007 to November 25, 2009, when selling sea water sales proceeds received from the F Office to persons with no knowledge of the names of sea water, and then being kept in custody for the victim company for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, J, K and L;

1. Each statement of M and N;

1. A protocol of postal service of theO;

1. Attachment: A copy of the documents and drawings related to permission for new construction in 2008, and attachment: A copy of the construction permission status investigation (F) records, the accounts of the FFF Bank in Korea, each of the defendant agricultural cooperative accounts, the defendant agricultural cooperative accounts, the IF Bank accounts, the FF Agricultural Cooperatives accounts, the deposit and withdrawal money statement, the disbursement resolution, etc. on October 22, 2009, the disbursement resolution, etc. on October 30, 2009, and other statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (not stated in the written indictment that Article 356 of the Criminal Act does not appear to be a clerical error, but it appears to be a clerical error) and choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion among concurrent crimes as to the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. If a representative director, etc. of the relevant legal entity withdraws and uses the company’s money, and fails to present evidentiary materials as to the place of use, and fails to give reasonable explanation as to the reason for withdrawal and the place of use, it may be inferred that he/she withdraws the company’s money with the intent of unlawful acquisition and uses it for personal purposes.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2510 Decided June 27, 2013, etc.).