Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From November 5, 2011, the Defendant, as the president of the Seodaemun-gu “CADDF,” was in charge of the tasks of keeping, executing, and using partnership funds in relation to the progress of the partnership’s business.

On December 14, 2011, while the Defendant obtained a corporate card that can be used in connection with the performance of duties from the partnership at the office of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D C Rebuilding Project Association, the Defendant embezzled it by arbitrarily using KRW 6,870,940 for 89 times from the time of approval, including obtaining approval of KRW 32,00 from the “E” located in Goyang-si, Goyang-si and arbitrarily consumed it, from March 2, 2014 to March 2, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement concerning F;

1. Extraction of the details of resolutions made by the association and general meeting concerning the execution of each card use, card use statement, duplicate copy, cash withdrawal and payment, copies of books of the general meeting of shareholders, and the expenses for operation of the association,

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The sales and official expenses of the partnership held differently from the main points of the assertion are, notwithstanding its name, available for personal use within the limit of 500,000 won per month as remuneration of the president of the partnership.

Therefore, the defendant's use of the corporate card as a personal purpose within the limit of KRW 500,00 per month by using the corporate card, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant stated in an investigative agency that “the corporate card of a cooperative shall be used when it is necessary for the operation of the cooperative” (in case of an investigation record 225 pages), and ② the budget bill on the operating expenses of the cooperative as indicated in the judgment.