Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

As to the period of service of the Defendant’s victimized company from August 2016 to November 2016, the written indictment is written from August 11, 2016, but it is corrected as a clerical error.

A business director of the victim B (hereinafter referred to as the "victim B") is a person who has been engaged in the distribution, sale, collection of the price, etc. of the Australian Sosan.

On September 4, 2016, the Defendant purchased a small amount of KRW 207,00 with the corporate card of the victimized company from the government of the department store C, which was located in the Do Government on September 4, 2016, and sold the sales proceeds to the customer, he/she should deposit the sales proceeds to the victimized company, but thereafter, he/she embezzled the sales proceeds by arbitrarily using it for personal purposes, and thereafter, he/she embezzled the total amount of KRW 3,523,050 over 10 times from October 21, 2016, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police of D;

1. Complaint;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Attachment of evidentiary materials by a complainant);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (generally, selection of fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. The summary of the assertion is the fact that the defendant purchased the tenant with the corporate card of the victimized company and arbitrarily used the sales proceeds.

However, the defendant only committed such an act under the idea of compensating for the sale proceeds if another sale occurs after, and does not have the intention of embezzlement.

2. In the judgment of embezzlement, an intentional act is recognized as having awareness and intent of embezzlement of another person’s property in his/her custody. However, even in accordance with the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant knows that the injured company’s property (the sales proceeds of the small machine purchased with the corporate card of the victimized company) was the principal of the victimized company.