2012Gohap22 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Maximum 00

Kim Ma-ap (Lawsuits) (Court Decision 200

Attorney Im Chang-soo

May 17, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal History Office

around April 10, 2003, the Defendant joined the victim company, 00 securities company (hereinafter referred to as "victim company"), and has been engaged in the management work by attracting customers and collecting deposits from customers and collecting them from around July 1, 2007 at the victim company located in Seosan-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu.

On July 8, 2011, the Defendant spent KRW 1,614,553,514 in the same manner between April 12, 2004, including the withdrawal of KRW 49,500,000 from around 112, in the same day to around August 30, 201, on the part of the victim company, at the victim company’s Trade Union, Kim 00 on the pretext of investment in over-the-counter stocks, in the form of an investment bond, and consumed the purchase price of stocks and the cost of repayment of its own debt, in the same manner, from around 112 times to around 30, 201.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of Yellow 00;

1. An investigation report (to attach data to be submitted by an accuser, and a yellow 00 telephone investigation by an accuser);

1. Civil petition applications ( Kim 00, No. 00, No. 8), civil petition applications (Evidence No. 14, Evidence List No. 14), and street points;

A summary report of special audit results, and the embezzlement of deposits of victims;

1. A statement of suspect agricultural transaction, a statement of suspect national bank transaction, and a statement of suspect single bank transaction;

Head 00 Details of transactions, head Mes Ma

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355 of the Criminal Act

Article 1 (General Provisions)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

From June to 15 years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Type】

Embezzlement and Misappropriation

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Where the method of commission is very poor;

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation

[Scope of the recommended sentence] Three to six years

【General Adopteds】

-Mitigation elements: serious if most of the proceeds of crime are not consumed and not retained;

Maternity, No history of criminal punishment

- Aggravations: in the case of embezzlement

3. Determination of sentence;

【Disadvantageous Sentencing】

○ The Defendant is engaged in the management of deposits owned by the Victim Company, over 112 times.

The fact that the arbitrarily withdrawn funds and used funds for personal purposes is very poor in the quality of the crime, and the scale of substantial damage, such as the ○ embezzlement exceeding the total amount of 1.6 billion won, is very large.

It seems that the victim company still seeks punishment because the substantial part of the ○ damage is not recovered.

This means:

【Person in Charge of Sentencing】

○ The Defendant made an extreme choice to meet the loss incurred by his investment during that period.

to re-investment a substantial portion of useful money and to repay the existing embezzlement money.

Korea

○ The victim company is insured in preparation for financial accidents, and approximately 380 million won from the insurance company.

Points scheduled to be paid ten million won

○ In the course of repeating stock transactions by appropriating deposits from customers, the victim company

the commission income of approximately KRW 500,000 to the

○ The fact that all of his crime is recognized and is in profoundly against

○ The defendant has no past record of criminal punishment.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judges Jin Jinio

Judges Senior Jin-jin