(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.6.29. 선고 2018고합292 판결

From April 2015 to February 28, 2018, the Defendant served as a person in charge of financial accounting in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.") with the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.") from around April 2015 to February 28, 2018, and was willing to use the victim's funds for personal purposes, such as stock investment,

On September 26, 2016, the Defendant entered “F Contract Amount” as if he remitted money to the customer of the victim company by using Internet banking, and transferred KRW 5,000,000 from the bank account under the name of the said victim to the bank account (Account Number G) in the name of the Defendant, and used it for personal purposes, such as stock investment, credit card payment, etc.

In addition, from September 26, 2016 to January 29, 2018, the Defendant transferred the sum of KRW 1,157,946,500 of the funds of the victim company to the bank account under the name of the above Defendant, including the statement in the list of crimes, from September 26, 2016 to January 29, 2018, and used shares investment, card price, living expenses, etc. around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company in his occupational custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A complaint and a statement on the details of the preparation of the defendant attached thereto, data on confirmation of the amount of embezzlement in relation to the complaint for embezzlement of public funds, and inquiry into the past transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Submission of Materials - Certificate of Results of Transactions in the Account) and attached documents, a certificate of results of transactions in the Account, a criminal investigation report (to telephone conversations with a complainant representative - details of transfers related to telephone conversations on November 8, 2016), an investigation report (the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure) and a certificate of results of transactions in the Account attached thereto, a detailed statement of transactions in the Account, a statement of financial transaction information, a statement of information provision, a customer's personal information, a written application for a new transaction, a statement of customer information, a statement of customer information, a statement of entry and withdrawal, details of transactions in the Account, an integrated account (comp

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

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

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From June to 15 years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Convicted Persons] Self-denunciation

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Determination of Punishment from June to 3 years of imprisonment

The Defendant, who had no record of crime, surrenders himself to an investigative agency by breaking out his mistake in the first place with no record of crime, and then making efforts to recover the damage of the victim company by paying out 390 million won out of the amount of damage to the victim company. However, the crime of this case is used to make an investment in stocks, etc. by embling a large amount of money equivalent to 1.5 million won during a period of time when one year and six months have elapsed, with a view to making up for the loss incurred by the investment in personal stocks, and is not good in light of the motive, contents and methods of the crime, and the scale of the amount of damage, etc., it is difficult to see that the circumstance is good after the Defendant committed the crime, such as correcting the file of the amount of money deposited in the account of the victim company to conceal the crime of embezzlement, and sending it to the accounting office, considering the fact that considerable part of the amount of damage suffered by the victim company is still not recovered, and thus, the Defendant’s age and conduct and family relationship in the facility need to be determined.