The court below did not recognize the criminal intent of embezzlement of the defendant and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, although the victim company remitted the funds of the victim company to the account in the name of the defendant in order to use semiconductor wafers individually, and remitted the transaction price in the name of the defendant.

2. Determination

A. On September 12, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the semiconductor chip, which was developed by the Defendant, is likely to be successful, is liquidated the relationship with F and the victim company, as the Defendant attempted to increase its capital at the office of the victim dispute management committee in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 201-31 (hereinafter “victim company”).

This is determined and used, and it is difficult to walk an independent way.

around September 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the above victim’s company’s office, had been attracting investment money from “G” companies located in Japan; and (b) deposited KRW 215,773,500 into the passbook (Account H) of the victim company’s name; and (c) has recovered some of the above F money under the pretext of the household deposit system; and (d) had been in charge of the fund affairs of the victim company at the time of the above company’s passbook.

With the knowledge that I had, the victim corporation passbook and seal, withdraw money equivalent to the price to be paid to the transaction company of the victim company from the victim company in the name of the defendant company, and transfer the money to the defendant company's personal name, and converting the products (M) developed by the defendant company that is not the victim company into "J", which is its own mark, into the product and use it for the direct development with the funds from K.