beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. From August 6, 2012 to April 7, 2013, the Defendant, while holding office as a “one-time payment ledger” in E operated by the victim D located in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Busan and engaged in the management of school students and the collection of school expenses. A.
On March 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant’s account (H) from the Plaintiff’s father G of the F Private Teaching Institutes; (b) reported as if the Plaintiff was deposited in business for the victim; and (c) embezzled the remainder of KRW 115,00 for the Defendant’s personal use.
From that time to April 5, 2013, the Defendant embezzled 1,635,00 won in total as shown in the attached list of crimes.
B. From December 2012 to January 2013, the Defendant: (a) obtained KRW 1,700,000 in total from Nonparty I and 17 in the name of winter special lecture expenses from Nonparty I to Nonparty E; (b) obtained the Defendant’s personal account and cash; and (c) returned all of the special lecture expenses for the victim while the victim was kept in custody on behalf of the victim; and (d) falsely reported that the victim’s special lecture expenses were cancelled and returned to the students; and (e) embezzled KRW 1,700,000 for the Defendant’s personal use.
2. On April 7, 2013, the Defendant, who interfered with the business, sent text messages to the parents of the victims of the instant E, which were operated by the Victim D, to the effect that “A private teaching institute closed the door because it was returned money,” or sent text messages to the parents of the parents who did not receive the phone.
However, in fact, the defendant only thought that he was a benefit director and an instructor, and the victim did not have any plan to close the school or to close the school business.
Accordingly, the defendant spreads false facts to interfere with the operation of the victim's private teaching institute.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant's oral statement;