A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From January 2, 2009 to April 16, 2013, the Defendant served as the representative director of the victim “C Co., Ltd.” located in the original city B, and the network D served as the representative director of the victimized company from November 18, 201.

Upon D’s death on April 3, 2014, around April 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with D’s wife to acquire KRW 1668,000,000 from KRW 160,000,000. From April 25, 2014 to November 25, 2020, the Defendant agreed to pay the said amount by paying KRW 2,00,000 each time from April 25, 201 to November 25, 202. On April 23, 2014, the Defendant again assumed office as the representative director of the victimized company.

While the Defendant, as the representative director of the victimized Company, has kept the said Company’s funds in business, he/she remitted the amount of KRW 2 million of the damaged Company’s funds to E account as the price for acquisition of the said shares on April 21, 2014, and around that time, from around 26 to June 20, 2016, remitted the total amount of KRW 52 million of the damaged Company’s funds to E account under the same name as shown in the crime list as shown in the attached crime list, and embezzled the property of the victimized Company under the occupational custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made in relation to F, E, and G;

1. A complaint, a detailed statement on transactions by account, and a detailed statement on changes in stocks and other matters, a detailed statement on transactions by corporate bank accounts in C (States), each of the details on provisional payments, and the president of each account in 2016 (provisional payments);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the defendant remitted the above money to E as part of the method of repaying the claims held by the victimized company, and ② the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized by keeping the accounts with the representative's provisional payment item.

2. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement on occupational part of the relevant legal doctrine

-be kept in breach of the occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the interest of himself or any third party;