beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, for each of the defendants B and C, shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
except that from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A On February 8, 2012, the Daejeon District Court sentenced the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment of 8 months for fraud to 20 years, and the judgment was finalized on December 27, 2012.
Defendant
A as the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), a person who has overall control over the management of E such as fund management, business, etc., Defendant B is a person who has worked as an internal director of E, and Defendant C is a person who has served as an auditor of E.
E around April 13, 2011, in order to newly construct and sell urban-type housing on the land located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, in order to newly build and sell urban-type housing, E invested KRW 550,6310,000 from G, as a fund for purchase of the above land and for the operation of the corporation, and kept it in the account of the National Bank I, which is the joint name of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).
1. Occupational embezzlement;
A. The Defendants intended to pay KRW 12 million out of the above investment funds kept in custody for victim E as interest on loans to Defendant B. However, when J, the representative of H, opposed to the above loan funds, was unable to withdraw funds under the interest on loans to Defendant B, the Defendants conspired to return the said funds from K to Defendant B as interest on loans immediately after he/she paid the land amount to be paid to the land seller and to pay KRW 12 million to Defendant B as interest on loans. On April 13, 2011, the Defendants embezzled KRW 80,80,000 under the name of paying the land price to K as a loan interest on the same day after he/she received KRW 16,30,000 from K to the new bank account in the name of Defendant B from the Defendant on the same day and embezzled by using the said funds at his/her own discretion during the course of business keeping for the victim E.
B. In fact, the Defendants paid KRW 30 million out of the above investment amount under custody for the victim E even though there was no debt to be borne by the victim E, to M as a debt repayment, and conspired to use part of it for M after receiving a return from M., and then, around April 18, 201, to M as a debt repayment.