A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim to export the plant of the victim C in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu and divide profits from the plant of the species and the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of Jung-gu and the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant.

After that, on May 29, 2013, the Defendant transferred 500,000 won which the victim transferred to one bank account under the name of the Defendant’s wife for business expenses;

6.6.Written Transfer 600,000 won;

7.9.In the course of carrying 500,000 won remitted on or around duty:

6.2.Swel value of clothes 130,00 won, 100,700 won at hospital costs, 19,800 won with the weak value, and 18,800 won at taxi costs;

6.8. arbitrarily consumed 200,000 won for personal purposes, such as using each of the costs, such as salted fish.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the fact that the defendant received money from the victim and used it for the purpose stated in the facts charged is stated)

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

1. e-mail details;

1. Personal entry status;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the transaction details of one bank in D name;

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (generally and collectively, selection of fines);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. Although the Defendant received money from the victim and used the money for the same purpose as indicated in the facts charged, considering the following details of use and motive of expenditure, it is not deemed that the Defendant used money in the course of performing duties under the agreement with the victim for an individual purpose, and thus, it does not constitute the elements of the crime of occupational embezzlement.

A. As to the clothes value, hospital expenses, and medicinal value used on June 2, 2013, the Defendant around April 2013.