Accordingly, the defendant and the victim company provided heavy equipment parts together in the Hanjin Heavy Industries, and the defendant received the payment first from Hanjin Heavy Industries, and agreed to deliver it to the victim company.

Pursuant to the above agreement, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 56,363,378 equivalent to the cost of parts supplied by the victim among the cost of parts of the equipment part among the cost of the equipment part, which was received from the Han Heavy Industries as “D” from April 30, 2011 to August 12, 2011, and embezzled it by paying the Defendant’s transaction price to the customer according to the mind at that time.

2. The facts charged are based on the premise that the defendant supplied parts to the Hanjin Heavy Industries jointly with the victim, and the cost of parts paid by the Hanjin Heavy Industries is the joint ownership of the victim and the defendant.

On the other hand, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The witness F's statement, which corresponds to the fact that the defendant was in a position to deliver the goods to the Han Heavy Industries jointly with the victim, and part of F's protocol of suspect interrogation of the defendant to the prosecution against the defendant (this seems to have been erroneous in the legal judgment as to the fact that the victim company delivered the goods directly to the Han Heavy Industries).

Rather, according to the witness F’s partial legal testimony, F’s accusation, and the police statement of F, the fact that only D in the Defendant’s management is entitled to participate in the bidding of the Han Jin Heavy Industries as a collaborative company of the Han Jin Heavy Industries, and the Defendant is awarded a successful bid for the supply of heavy equipment parts from Han Jin Heavy Industries.