The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Of the facts charged in this case, the embezzlement of December 20, 201 among the facts charged in this case is not guilty.

Punishment of the crime

On June 13, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daejeon District Court on September 13, 2012 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2012.

From October 16, 2011, the Defendant, as the representative director and the actual operator of the Victim FF Co., Ltd. in Seo-gu Daejeon, was in charge of business and fund management.

On November 10, 2011, the Defendant entered into an exclusive agreement with LA and LAB with respect to “BS and HAC business” as to deposit money of KRW 100 million and KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 in the name of 2 cases of exclusive contract on November 18, 201 and transferred the deposit money to the agricultural bank under his/her name and deposited KRW 3,60,000 in the national bank account in his/her name on November 28, 201, while keeping the damaged company for business purposes, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the remainder of KRW 9.4 million for personal purposes, such as remitting the deposit money to G and H, the spouse, and embezzled KRW 9,40,000,000,000,000 for other personal purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness I’s partial statement 1. The defendant asserts that there is no intention to acquire unlawful profits since he/she added a claim to the damaged company at the time of committing the crime to the higher amount of the claim against the damaged company and appropriated it for the repayment of the claim against the victim company. The defendant asserted that there is no intention to acquire unlawful profits.

If the representative director who holds an individual claim against the company uses the money held by the company for the repayment of his/her own claim, he/she cannot be punished for embezzlement because it is not recognized as an unlawful acquisition intent.

However, it is necessary to closely examine whether such bonds exist and, if any, the accurate amount, and whether the representative director's act can be seen as an act of securing the repayment of the bonds.

Supreme Court Decision 200