2014 Highest 299 A. Fraud

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

C. Violation of the Employment Insurance Act

1. (a). (c) A

2. B

Freeboard (Public Prosecution) and on the oral hearing (Public Trial)

Law Firm Fixed-Number, Attorney Kim Dong-ho (for Defendant A),

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

November 26, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. The order of Defendant A to provide community service for 120 hours, such as welfare service activities.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be disclosed to the Defendants.

Facts of crime

Defendant A served as an employee of the company 000, and was in charge of supplying alcoholic beverages to the victim C and the X entertainment tavern 1 store (referred to as X 1 store) substantially operated by the victim C and D in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. around July 201, Defendant A retired from his company 000 and around July 18, 2011 to July 21, 2012, the victims worked as a manager from the X entertainment tavern 2 store (referred to as X 2 store) operated by the victims from Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Defendant B worked as a manager from March 3, 2010 to September 2012 from June 2, 2012 to June 21, 2012.

1. Defendant A’s fraud

around August 9, 201, the Defendant received alcoholic beverages from 000 companies on behalf of the victims from X 2 around August 9, 201, and entered the falsely the quantity of five boxes of beer in the alcoholic beverage account book of X 2, and then demanded the victims to deliver five boxes of beer to the commercial company based on the account book, and then he received KRW 150,000 from the victims of beer five boxes of beer and received KRW 150,000 from the victims as shown in the attached crime list I. From around that time to July 20, 2012, the Defendant acquired KRW 11,956,000 in total over 26 times from that time to July 20, 2012 and acquired KRW 11,956,00.

2. Defendant A’s violation of the Employment Insurance Act

The Defendant was on duty in 000 commercial companies located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and retired from office around July 201, and was re-employed as a manager of X 2, a customer around July 18, 201, and around July 201.

21. Around September 15, 201, even though the employer worked for the time and received wages from X X 2, the reason for departure in the column of column of column of column of column of column of column of column of reason for departure when applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Seoul Western District Office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency for approval of the eligibility for employment insurance. "No" is "no "no person has a current business registration certificate, or self-employed (including an insurance solicitor, debt collector, multi-stage member membership, etc.)", and "no person has been falsely marked as an unemployed "no" and then transferred unemployment benefits 302,410 won to the Defendant's bank account at the Defendant's name around September 30, 2011, including the time from that time.

3. Around 21, around 21, a total of KRW 6,804,370 was illegally received through eight times, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement made by a witness D, B, ○○, the minimum, ○○○, and Noh○;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution (including the D substitute part);

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants (including D substitutes)

1. Statement by the prosecutor with respect to the largest ○○;

1. Statement of each police officer made to No. 00 and D;

1. Investigative report (including the correction of the amount of e-bbbbbling embezzlement, the submission of a e-mail card and an alcoholic beverage book in X1, the submission, etc. of commercial management cards and an alcoholic beverage book, the submission, etc. of false statements on alcoholic beverage quantities, the arrangement of false statements on the amount of event payments, the submission, etc. of data on payment of the event price, the attachment of a copy of an application for recognition of eligibility for benefits to A by a suspect

1. The alcoholic beverage account book prepared by A directly by X2 (Seo-dong) and the alcoholic beverage log transaction card (to be submitted to west-Support Civil Form 7 Formbook).

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud, the choice of imprisonment), Article 116(2) of the Employment Insurance Act (the violation of the Employment Insurance Act, and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

The reasons for sentencing are as follows, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances of sentencing, the age, character and conduct, and environment of Defendant A, and the recommended sentences specified in the sentencing guidelines, the same sentence as the order shall

A. Defendant A recognized and reflected the instant fraud crime.

B. On November 4, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act in the Jeonju District Court’s military acid support on three occasions.

C. Defendant A did not agree with, or compensate for, the defrauded’s damage. In addition, the crime of violation of the Employment Insurance Act is not against the nature of the crime of abusing the unemployment benefits system prepared to promote the stabilization of workers’ livelihood and job seeking activities through the payment of the worker’s benefits necessary for his/her unemployment, and causing damage to the National Treasury.

(d) The recommended sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines (1) fraud;

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million)

[Special Sentencing] None (2) The crime of violating the Employment Insurance Act is not subject to the sentencing guidelines.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of each of the facts charged against the Defendants is as follows.

A. The liquor companies, such as Defendant AY (Importer of Baski), Z (Importer of ZW), and H beer, have been holding events to refund money corresponding to the refund of labels Stackers, by setting a specific amount per head of the company attached to a box for alcoholic beverages, to the extent that they return labels to the boxes. The refund from events is the money paid by the liquor companies to the owners of entertainment establishments, which maintain a transaction relationship with the entertainment establishments with a large quantity of alcoholic beverages to purchase alcoholic beverages.

The Defendant was fully in charge of the purchase of alcoholic beverages from X 1 and X 2, and using the fact that the victims who are the owners of alcoholic beverages from X 1 and X 2 were well aware of the refund event paid by the liquor company, to 2, October 12, 2009, returned the labelling Stick to the liquor box supplied by X 2, and then transferred KRW 90,000 to the Defendant’s name national bank account to the Defendant’s bank account, and used it for the victims for their business. From around that time to July 25, 2012, the Defendant used the Defendant’s name bank account, the Defendant’s wife Kim Jong-hee bank account, the Plaintiff’s name bank account, and the 107,000 won to 104,000 won to 10,000 won to the Defendant’s name bank account, and then used the Defendant’s personal embezzlement from Seoul to 99 times until July 25, 2012.

B. Defendant B

On July 5, 201, the Defendant, as a manager of X 1 and 2, took advantage of the fact that the victims, who are the owners of alcoholic beverages, were well aware of the refund event paid by the liquor company, returned to the Z the labelling Stick box attached to the alcoholic beverage box supplied by X 1 around July 5, 201, and then deposited 48,00 won refund money to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant for the victims, and then used them for personal purposes, such as living expenses, from around that time to June 2012, the Defendant spent 7,000 won in total from the liquor company, and embezzled it by personal use from the place of the city, etc. in Seoul.

2. Determination

A. Prosecutor and Defendants’ assertion

The prosecutor asserts that since the above event refund money shall be paid to the liquor company to the owner of the amusement business, the Defendants, as managers of X 1 and X 2, are in the position of keeping the event refund money for the owner of the business C and D, and the act of arbitrarily consuming it constitutes embezzlement.

On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that this event refund was paid by liquor company to the Defendants, and that it was reverted to the Defendants.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is reasonable to deem that the instant event refund is the money that a liquor company pays to the Defendants for its business operations and belongs to the Defendants. Therefore, the instant facts charged on the premise that the said money belongs to C and D and the Defendants were in the custody for them cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(1) The refund money of this event is a kind of sales incentive to pay a certain volume of sales to a customer who recorded sales in excess of the standard to sell his product in bulk. (2) Liquor companies are paying the refund money of this event to a person (one eyman) who has substantial influence over increasing sales of the liquor company, such as by actively soliciting customers to sell and purchase alcoholic beverages, etc. (one eyman). The liquor companies are paying the refund money of this event to the principal, manager, manager, manager, manager, manager, manager of the office, office of the office, etc. according to the circumstances of the customer. Accordingly, the liquor companies are not paying the refund money of this case to the employee. The liquor companies do not make an agreement with the customer to pay the refund money of this case to the customer companies in advance, and are paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the amount of the refund money of this company's sales from the customer company to the employee of this company. The amount of the discount of alcoholic beverages is more than the amount of the refund money of this company.

(3) Defendant A was in the position of overall control over the delivery of alcoholic beverages of X 1 and 2, and the instant amount of the instant amount of the refund was paid only when the alcoholic beverage company and the Defendants sold above the quantity agreed in advance. According to the record, C and D received the instant amount of the refund by means of payment of gift certificates, credit card payment, etc. from the liquor company that supplies beer X 1 and 2. Moreover, C and C ordered Defendant A to directly receive the instant amount of the event refund from the liquor company around 2006, and to proceed with the instant event with Z and W. Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, C were not aware of the size of the event refund, but it appears that the Defendants were aware of the fact that the Defendants received the instant amount of the event refund and received it from the liquor company and the Defendants were not aware of the fact that they received the instant amount of the event refund and received the instant amount of the refund from the liquor company and the Defendants did not appear to have received the instant amount of the refund and the instant amount of the refund.

(7) Defendant A asserts that the e-mail refund that he received in relation to the sales of alcoholic beverages X 1 and X 2 is limited to KRW 38,382,00,00, and that the money in excess is presented to another business establishment or received the sales performance of the labels that he had opened at the other business establishment. This is likely to constitute a separate crime in relation to a liquor company, but the facts charged in this case are not included therein, and the above facts charged in this case are not included, and the above facts charged in this case are not included, and the above facts charged in this case are deemed to belong to the Defendants, the above argument is not further examined.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2)

Judges Lee Il-woo

(Attachment List of Crimes is omitted)