Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a person who served as the representative director of the victimized Co., Ltd. from October 18, 2014 to June 2015.

On October 1, 2014, the victim entered into a contract for commissioned education and sales transaction with the content that the victim sells the products of young children's goods, etc. and receives 23% of the sales price as service fees within the cooknet Holdings Co., Ltd. and the victim's kitchen.

According to the above contract, the Defendant embezzled KRW 3,062,146 in total, seven times, including KRW 117,530,00,000, as indicated in the attached crime sight table, using cash and account transfer for personal purposes during the course of carrying out business, as a sales commission from Koconet Holdings Co., Ltd.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Standard contract for commissioned education and sales transaction, details of the Konetnet trading account, confirmation letter, business registration certificate, transfer and return status;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that C’s management used the fee that C received from Koanet Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant fee”) as operating expenses for cooking, such as meal expenses, simple meal expenses, and light survey expenses, according to the private E’s instructions.

Therefore, there is a defendant's intention of occupational embezzlement or intention of illegal acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the Defendant’s embezzlement of the instant fee as the facts charged can be acknowledged.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

A. The Defendant is not a corporate account of the victim company.