A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as an internal director of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) established for the purpose of digital content production and software development business, is a person in charge of overall affairs, such as the operation of the company and fund execution.

B around March 2017, the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning delegated by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (the present Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning) was selected as a major institution for the "C Project" of the "C Project" promoted by the Information and Communications Technology Industry Promotion Agency, and entered into an agreement with

The Defendant transferred the sum of KRW 140,000,000,000 on May 2, 2017, and KRW 200,000,000 to the Victim Information and Communications Industry Promotion Agency, which is the integrated national subsidy management system operated by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance from the Victim Information and Communications Industry Promotion Agency, for project expenses, and used KRW 110,50,00 for the purpose of using KRW 140,00,00,00 for the purpose of the Victim Information and Communications Industry Promotion Agency while on May 4, 2017.

In addition, from around that time to June 9, 2017, the Defendant spent the total of KRW 111,453,735 on 42 occasions while working expenses for the Information and Communication Industry Promotion Agency as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim who was in custody on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement of the court (which recognizes the fact that project expenses were paid as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Form), and some of them recognize embezzlement because it is an expenditure unrelated to the task, but the remainder is an expenditure related to the task and thus it is not possible to recognize the suspicion of embezzlement. Specific arguments are as follows: the protocol of statement of the police officer (stock company B), the protocol of statement of the second year business execution plan, and the second year business execution plan with respect to G.