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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the representative director of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) for the purpose of mobile service, Internet service, software development, etc., was selected as a participating institution for the research of “F” projects exclusively dedicated to E, an institution affiliated with the trade ledger, and entered into the said G agreement with E, and was paid KRW 400 million from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 pursuant to the said agreement.

On July 5, 2013, the Defendant voluntarily consumed KRW 13,052,00 out of the project cost, which was paid to the above company as the representative director, for the purpose of the implementation of research tasks under the above agreement, for the purpose of research allowances to the Industrial Bank of Korea (H) account in the above company’s name. However, the Defendant voluntarily consumed the project cost for the purpose of operating expenses such as personnel expenses of the above company’s employees who are irrelevant to the implementation of the research tasks or the repayment of the company’s obligations.

In addition, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 84,908,00 in total seven times from July 5, 2013 to August 5, 2013 by the following methods, such as the written list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Written confirmation by J or K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing a written accusation, a copy of a G agreement, a detailed statement of account transactions for project costs, details of transaction on A personal account, and all registered matters;

1. As to the defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts that the crime of embezzlement cannot be established on the ground that the pertinent company received research funds pursuant to the agreement entered into with E, but did not keep research funds according to the consignment relationship.

(1) However, the project cost of the agreement entered into between E and the instant company is an exclusive institution.