A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who, from November 16, 2004 to March 31, 201, worked as the victim corporation F’s independent service personnel of Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu as the victim corporation F’s independent service personnel of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul metropolitan area 1 team business personnel of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul metropolitan area, and has been engaged in newspaper sale, distribution and collection with respect to 50 and more branch countries including the s

On December 2, 2007, the Defendant: (a) claimed KRW 46,446,760 from 22 branch countries, including the above F’s independent service country; and (b) deposited KRW 43,487,00,000 in the victim company; and (c) embezzled KRW 2,959,760 for personal use at around that time while he was in the custody of the victim company for the victim company, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the difference of KRW 2,95,760 for personal use in Seoul or Gyeonggi-si.

In addition, from around that time to September 2010, the Defendant embezzled KRW 127,048,990, which was collected more than 33 times through the aforementioned method as shown in the attached list of crimes, arbitrarily consumed the sum of the newspaper sales proceeds of the victim company for personal purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense as to the assertion of defense counsel of investigation report (A newspaper sales proceeds), investigation report (Submission of a written complaint, state management expenses data, suspect's monthly statement, etc.), investigation report (revision of the list of crimes). The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the amount that the defendant received from each country in excess of the amount reported to the victim company was made under consultation and coordination with each country for business revitalization, etc., and that the difference is not the property of the victim company, but the defendant used for each country without consuming it for personal purposes, and thus the defendant does not constitute embezzlement for business purposes.

However, the defendant made a report to the victim company as a price for newspaper sale.