beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, from October 2013 to July 31, 2018, is a person who works as a real operator of the Victim C Co., Ltd. located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do and was engaged in overall control over the manufacture and sale of ready-mixeds, fund management, etc. of the victim company.
1. The Defendant, who embezzled the sales proceeds of non-data-free containers, did not issue a tax invoice in a normal manner with some business partners, supplied ready-mixed without issuing a tax invoice to the victim’s company, and committed a “data-free transaction” under the name of an individual who is not a corporate account in the name of the victim’s company, instead of a corporate account in the name of the victim’s company, and received some of the transaction proceeds of the pertinent non-data from transfer to the personal account under the name of the Defendant’s management and used
Accordingly, the Defendant, at around January 6, 2016, embezzled KRW 35,589,70 in total by the same method 19 times from around 2017 to August 9, 2017, when he/she received KRW 270,00 from D to E’s account (G) and received KRW 2,70,000 for the victim company’s business for transfer of the said money to another EF association account (H) around January 8, 2016.
2. Around October 2013, the Defendant established the Victim Company and promoted the work to build infrastructure, such as a ready-mixed manufacturing plant, etc. on or around July 2014, the Defendant was introduced through J, i.e., an applicant for investment, and operated the Victim Council’s History as a partner company. For this reason, the Defendant agreed with J and I to the effect that “I would provide money if the status of the management of the company remains due to the situation of the management of the company,” and that “I would provide money.”
Accordingly, on June 2016, the defendant ordered a non-indicted employee and did not actually work in the victim company as an employee of the victim company.