횡령
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around January 2012, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, invested funds under the C’s business plan, and the Defendant agreed to establish G with its affiliated subsidiaries for the purpose of carrying out the projects to raise funds for the operation of the F and the corporation, an incorporated association, by organizing the organization, and established G on February 24, 2012. After establishing the Company G, the Defendant obtained the establishment permission of the incorporated associationF on June 29, 2012. From that time, the Defendant, as the chief vice-chairperson of the incorporated associationF, had overall control over all the tasks, including the execution of G capital, which is the said corporation and its subsidiary company.
Around January 26, 2012, the Defendant, while serving as the head of the Friju and Jeonnam Headquarters, entered into a branch agreement with H and Gwangju Metropolitan City, and transferred KRW 3 million to the account of Gwangju Bank (I) in the name of the Defendant as the down payment. However, upon entering the legal management, the said incorporatedF retired from F, an incorporated association, and participated in the establishment of an incorporated association. Accordingly, upon H’s demand for return of KRW 3 million upon termination of the said branch contract, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s funds by arbitrarily paying KRW 3 million from the said account at the office of the F, an incorporated association of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, the first president of the FF, with the authority to use the G bank account (J). On February 4, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s funds by arbitrarily paying KRW 402 million upon termination of the said branch contract from the said account.
2. The Defendant asserted that: (a) the Defendant used 3 million won, which H remitted to F, an incorporated association, for the purpose of a common office rent and employee accommodation, as an incorporated association, F and G Co., Ltd., for the payment of the said money to G Co., Ltd.; (b) the payment of the said money to G Co., Ltd. was not different from the repayment; and (c) the Defendant denied the
Modern, this Court has duly adopted and investigated.