Attorney C, D

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Around August 30, 200, the Defendant entered the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and worked as EEC from July 1, 2009 to October 31, 201, and was in charge of performance planning, DV production, DV production, OST production, and entertainment-related supplementary products production. The Defendant established H with G on December 11, 2008, appointed the Defendant’s agent I as the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Resolution Co., Ltd., and actually established and operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. around March 26, 2009.

1. Business embezzlement to the victim H in the capacity of a bank;

The Defendant, in collusion with I, the representative director of the victim H in the K in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 12, 2009, embezzled KRW 258,416,478, total sum of the funds of the victim by 33 times from May 25, 2012, as stated in the attached list, from the time of 2012, as follows: (a) the Defendant, in collusion with I, was the victim's office in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the following occasions: (b) the Defendant was the Defendant's mother L was merely the victim's auditor only formally, but did not have actually performed his duties as the auditor; and (c) the Defendant was pretended to have worked as the auditor as having performed his duties as the auditor and used the remittance of KRW 1,463,3

2. Occupational breach of trust against the victim dispute resolution council;

Around October 2010 to November 2011, the defendant entered into a contract for supply and distribution of "M with the right to purchase", "M with the right to purchase", and "M with the right to purchase" among the above services. Accordingly, the victim ordered the plaintiff's actual operator to use the service among the above services, so the defendant, who is the actual operator of the victim, fulfilled his duty of due care and good faith in ordering the service, shall not inflict damage on the victim's company, even though he had a duty of care and good faith, the fact that the defendant violated his duty of care and good faith in ordering the service is excessive of 33,00,000 won, even though the actual cost of production of the notice service is excessive of 6,6,000 won, which is excessive to 33,00,000 won in the cost of production of the notice service in North Korea, and the defendant paid 3,000,0000 won in the name of the victim's own interest to 3,000,0000 won in the account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (which is made on the fifth trial date);

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Statement of witness 0 in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (including each part of the statement in 0);

1. Statement made to the prosecution by the N;

1. Each police statement on P, I, N, G, Q, and0;

1. AR statement;

1. Report on internal investigation (Attachment of data, such as a family relation certificate, etc.) and report on internal investigation (H ownership of a stock company);

A) internal investigation reports (Account Analysis 1), internal investigation reports (Account Analysis 2), internal investigation reports (PP telephone statement hearing, etc.), internal investigation reports (PP telephone statement hearing, etc.), internal investigation reports (account analysis, etc.), internal investigation reports (execution of warrant of search and seizure verification, attachment of e-mail data), investigation reports (attached tax invoices issued from P Pfato North Korea), investigation reports (Listening to N's statements related to services contracted by Pfato North Korea), investigation reports (subject to basic personnel information of A) (subject to attachment of suspect's basic information)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (Occupational Embezzlement); Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act; Determination of the penalty of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the following reasons for sentencing):

Grounds for sentencing

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 2 (10 million won to 50 million won). Reduction area (6 months to 6 years)

[Special Mitigation] substantial one company or family company

[Pronouncement 1 Decision 1: The sum of the amount of damage to the instant crime reaches KRW 290 million; the period has not been forged for a long time; each victim company is a company under actual control of the Defendant; the accused confessions the Defendant, returns the amount of damage to each victim company; the Defendant has no particular criminal record; the Defendant has no other criminal record; and the sentencing conditions of the instant crime, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the disposition.