A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On December 5, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on December 13, 2018 for the crime of occupational embezzlement in support of the Daejeon District Court for the crime of occupational embezzlement. The judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

around August 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E who operates D Co., Ltd. at the office of the Defendant in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) stating that “The Defendant would pay the price without mold if he/she supplies steel to the company he/she operates.”

However, at the time of fact, C’s assets were 13.8 billion won, while its liabilities were overpaid with 29.6 billion won, and the Defendant was immediately before filing an application for corporate rehabilitation proceedings against C with the court, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the price normally even if the Defendant was supplied with steel materials from the victim.

Around August 19, 2014, the Defendant received steel products worth KRW 52,123,500 from the victim’s office at around August 19, 2014, from that time, from that time, the Defendant was supplied with steel products worth KRW 193,562,105 in total six times, as shown in the attached crime list, from October 1, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

The Defendant stated, around September 2014, that “The Defendant would pay the price on the settlement date, to the victim H who operates G Co., Ltd. at the above C office of the said C office, through F, an employee belonging to the business division of the said company, as a person operating C Co., Ltd. at the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property at the time, and as a result, it was immediately before the defendant applied for the corporate rehabilitation procedure due to the excess of the obligation, so even if the defendant was supplied with the iron plate from the victim, the defendant's intent or ability to pay