A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The application for compensation order of this case shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

around August 2013, the Defendant proposed that “E” cosmetics located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D be invested in the victim C as “The rate of return is very high. As such, funds necessary for the operation of the head of the head of the head of the health care center should be borne by the internal government, and the initial funds necessary for the establishment of the head of the health care center should be invested in the name of the victim as the establishment of the head of the health care center.

In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant was transferred KRW 85 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of the Defendant, five times from September 27, 2013 to November 21, 2013, under the name of the Fund for the Establishment of Health Care.

Defendant used the above amount of KRW 55 million out of the above amount for personal purposes, such as paying personal card payments and living expenses, etc. around that time, the Defendant used the amount of KRW 55 million in mind.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and G;

1. In relation to the accused in the prosecutor's office and the police interrogation protocol on May 10, 2016, the part against which the accused denies the actual authenticity of the interrogation protocol for the accused in the prosecutor's office is inadmissible as evidence.

(C) a statement

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The accusation statement, deposit statement, each text message, confirmation statement, business registration certificate, each account transaction statement, tax payment statement, wage settlement statement, business income payment ledger, card use statement, and ordinary deposit transaction statement [the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant would use the card price and business promotion cost to maintain his/her credit rating, and the victim did not raise any objection thereto, thereby practically obtaining the consent.

However, the victim's statement is inconsistent with this, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant explained such circumstances even if examining other evidence, and when considering the circumstances of this case, the defendant made the above statement.