The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a management director of D, and the Defendant established and operated the F Company from August 2010 to December 201, 201 with the victim E, and the Defendant was in charge of the fund management affairs of the F Company.

On October 26, 2010, the Defendant, at the office of the F Company in the second floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, withdrawn KRW 10 million out of the business funds of the said F Company, which was in custody of the National Bank Account (H) and embezzled by using them for personal purposes.

From October 26, 2010 to November 8, 2010, the Defendant embezzled a total of KRW 77,385,420 for personal purposes, including this, for a total of 12 times from October 26, 2010 to November 8, 2010.

2. The Defendant asserts that, with the consent of the complainant E, the F company’s funds were not embezzled at will, since the Defendant used the F company’s funds for D.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the nature of the F Company’s funds, comprehensively taking account of each police interrogation protocol against Defendant A, each statement made by the police protocol against Defendant A, all of the registered matters, and each statement written by the police protocol against E, the entire registration certificate, and the business registration certificate, the F Company: (a) is a partnership with two persons who jointly operate a business with the complainant E, or (b) A (hereinafter “D”) who is a representative director, by lending the name of the F Company D (hereinafter “D”), and thus, the F Company is a partnership with D and E as a joint business proprietor.

Therefore, the F Company's funds in the national bank account as stated in the above facts charged are the partnership property belonging to D and E's partnership. Thus, in order for the Defendant to use the above funds for any purpose other than the business of the F Company, the consent of D and E is required.

However, as recognized earlier, D’s representative director is the same as the defendant, and the defendant is the management director of D, and the defendant used the F company’s funds for D, so at least D consented to the use of the above funds.