업무상횡령등
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and the execution shall be suspended for one year from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
From October to April 2018, 2018, the Defendant served as the vice-director in charge of accounting management and execution of the victim company (one representative director C and one other; hereinafter referred to as the “victim company”) and has been engaged in the affairs of managing and executing funds of the victimized company.
1. Occupational embezzlement;
A. On January 30, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 38,000 from the E bank account (H) in the name of the victimized company’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, to the Defendant’s G bank account (H). The details of transactions embezzled by stating “12 months’ expense and I” as if the damaged company’s expense, etc. were disbursed.
In addition, from that to December 23, 2017, the Defendant embezzled KRW 125,832,519 in total, 83 times as shown in the crime sight table 1.
B. On March 12, 2018, the Defendant transferred KRW 1,000,000 from the E Bank account (K) in the name of the victimized Company’s office in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the Defendant’s E Bank account (L). The details of transactions embezzled by stating “M/Sales Receipt” as if the expenses, etc. of the victimized Company were disbursed.
C. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 1,740,600 from the E Bank Account (F) in the name of the victimized Company’s office to the Defendant-friendly job offering N (P) account; and (b) embezzled the details of transactions by stating “ Q/N Headquarters” as if the sales commission is paid to the employees of the victimized Company.
From that time to February 10, 2017, the Defendant embezzled KRW 38,611,590 in total, as shown in Table 2, from that time, up to February 10, 2017.
2. The Defendant in occupational breach of trust, while in charge of accounting of the victimized company, has the victimized company keep the credit card in the name of the victimized company, so the said credit card, despite being used for the victimized company’s business, is in violation of the above occupational duty and is thereby in breach of the damaged company’s duty, and the victimized company pays 423,630 won from the “R as the Defendant would be used for private purposes at the victimized company’s office.”