The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. From July 10, 2012, the Defendant was working as the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of metal processing and sales business in Yangsan-si. The victim E leased part of the Defendant’s building located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si, and operated the Plaintiff Company I. Around July 2012, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the said I, who had a claim of approximately KRW 700 million against the said H due to the management shortage of the said H, was in contact with the Defendant during the closure of business.

On July 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received and kept approximately KRW 90,00,000,000,000 in total market price, such as MCT-VX-660M 1, MCT-460M 1, cT-VX-460M 1, cT-460M 1, e.g., metal processing machinery owned by the victim; and (b) made it difficult for the Defendant to use the said machinery at the above I office; (c) entered into an agreement with the Defendant to receive approximately KRW 3 million monthly living expenses for the said machinery while working as an employee of the said D; and (d) concluded that the victims would receive approximately KRW 3 million monthly living expenses for the said machinery to be paid to the Defendant; and (e) concluded a false sales contract to purchase the said machinery from the victim in the form of concerns over the attachment of creditors of the said I.

On July 30, 2012, the Defendant purchased the above machinery from the victim on the ground of a false sales contract, etc., and embezzled it by refusing to return the said machinery, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was provided with approximately KRW 90 million in total with the market price of the said machinery owned by the victim in the above JD’s clerical error; and (b) was kept for the victim; and (c) the Defendant was required to return the said machinery from the victim on or around October 2012 due to business depression, etc.; and (d) the Defendant purchased it on the ground that the said machinery was not paid at the time.