Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant’s occupational embezzlement argues to the effect that even if he disposed of money as stated in the facts charged, the occupational embezzlement is not established even if he/she disposed of the money as stated in the above facts charged. However, if he/she did not distribute profits and losses among the partners, if he/she did not have the right to dispose of the same business property belonging to the partnership of the partners at his/her own discretion, and thus, if he/she arbitrarily embezzled the same business property during the custody of the same business property, he/she is liable for the crime of embezzlement regardless of the ratio of shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 201). In light of the legal principle, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is recognized that according to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the occupational embezzlement is sufficiently guilty.

From February 18, 2016, the Defendant jointly operated a store for consumer products with the victim C in Jeonnam-do, Jeonnam-do along with the victim C.

On April 17, 2016, the Defendant used KRW 2 million from F for personal purposes, such as hospital expenses and living expenses, while receiving KRW 1,500,000,000 from G at the above store on the 19th day of the same month and receiving KRW 1,50,000,000 from H on the 21st day of the same month for the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

2. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant, at E stores listed in paragraph (1) around April 19, 2016, would give the victim H KRW 2,500,000,000 to cover the 3,50,000,000,000 won in a flab.

If money enters and leaves, it is expected to place a bed and installed after the bed.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

(b).