A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Punishment of the crime

From February 2009, the Defendant had been engaged in the fund management and accounting affairs while operating D as the victim C and the Dong business.

The Defendant arbitrarily used KRW 1,216,50,000,000 from the time to December 30, 209, for the victim’s work payment, etc. received from F in relation to the “E Three Area Removal Corporation” in the name of the victim’s bank or the account of Han Bank for business purposes. Around February 26, 2009, the Defendant arbitrarily used KRW 1,216,50,000,000, in total, of the amount of money of the victim’s money stored in each of the above accounts over 50 times from the time of the following crime list, as shown in the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusations, equipment, and service contracts for human resources (Evidence List 6, 11), president of the Customer (Evidence List 17), and specification of transactions (Evidence List 18);

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel as to the relevant criminal facts under Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant asserted that he withdrawn or remitted money from the account in the name of the victim as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, but delivered KRW 1,177,920,00 among them to G, which was the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and the Defendant and the victim entered into a service contract with F with respect to the “E 3 Area Removal Construction Work” (hereinafter “E Removal Construction Work”), and paid 30-40% of the construction cost received from F, as the Defendant and the victim agreed to enter into a so-called “business contract” with F to return it to F, and the victim also paid 30-40% of the construction cost received from F as rebates.