A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of occupational embezzlement (2013 senior group3085 case) is not guilty.

Punishment of the crime

[2] From April 2011 to May 2013, 2013, the Defendant was in charge of corporate tax and accounting management in G Co., Ltd. (the representative H; hereinafter referred to as “G”) that manufactures and sells the educational sound equipment called “F system” on the sixth floor of Seongdong-gu Seoul building, and the victim I was in charge of corporate tax and accounting management as the head of the management support office in Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The Defendant and the person who operates the J (hereinafter referred to as “J”) in the detention house.

On November 2012, the Defendant actively solicited the victim to “The foregoing system is a product directly developed by our company and is expected to be able to make investments in our company because it shows a clear prospect.” Accordingly, the Defendant and the victim entered into a total sales contract with the State (State)J to exclusively sell the sales rights in all areas, both domestic and foreign, to the said system.

1. On November 28, 2012, the Defendant concluded a monopoly sales contract with the victim at the (ju) J office located in the second floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on the said circumstances, and said, “(ju)G shares will rise later, so if the shares of the said company are purchased 19,000 shares and held approximately 10% of the shares of the said company, it can be seen as a large profit, and the Defendant obtained all approval for the monopoly sales contract and the share acquisition contract to H, the representative director of the said company.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not report to H, the representative director of G, to conclude the above exclusive sales contract and the stock sales contract, and did not obtain the approval for the conclusion of the contract, and thus, did not have the authority to conclude the stock sales contract in the name of (State)G. In addition, unlike that stated in the stock acquisition contract, the seller, who was the owner of the said shares, was an individual H, not a State, and thus, the share acquisition contract itself cannot be concluded in the name of (State)G.

The defendant.