A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 1, 2013, the Defendant established and operated a corporation E which manufactures heat set, which made the victim D as representative director, in the net city C around 1,013.

On April 4, 2013, the Defendant loaned KRW 100 million from the Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion Foundation to use it as company operation funds, and received money from the E Corporation’s account (F). On April 9, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the above KRW 30 million by consuming KRW 25 million among them to the Defendant’s wife G account and using it for personal purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. The witness D or I's partial statement in court (the third public trial protocol);

1. Details of entry and withdrawal transactions of bankbooks, and details of each passbook;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on borrowings;

1. Determination of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, and the defense counsel’s assertion of choice of punishment for the crime

1. The summary of the defense counsel's assertion and the defendant's above E (hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case") after commencement of the business;

Since the victim's wife only received a return of borrowed funds, and the victim's wife confirmed the content of the settlement, the defendant did not embezzled.

2. If the settlement of profit and loss was not made between the judgment partners, a partner’s person is not entitled to dispose of the company’s business property belonging to the partner’s partnership at his own discretion. Thus, if a partner arbitrarily embezzled the company’s business property during his/her custody, then he/she shall be held liable for the crime of embezzlement against the whole amount embezzled at his/her own discretion irrespective of his/her share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 201). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant did not settle with the victim who is the partner at his/her own discretion.