beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, as an employee of the Victim F Co., Ltd., a building management company, from July 2010 to February 2012, 201, has been engaged in the receipt of management expenses and transfer of the said building as the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Management Office.
On December 7, 2010, the Defendant collected 500,000 won for underground sales expenses of the above building at the management office of the above building and remitted the amount of KRW 250,000 among them to the account under the name of the above company (H) and consumed the remainder of KRW 250,000 for personal use at the time of Seoul City.
From around that time to April 6, 2012, the Defendant consumed the total of KRW 4,500,000 in the same way through the same 18 times from the place of the city in Seoul, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form.
Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.
2. The prosecutor, as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, submitted the statement to the investigation agency of I and J, and the statement to the investigation agency of K, a subordinate employee of the defendant, etc. The records revealed as follows. It is reasonable to view that the defendant has the authority to dispose of the rent of the said G building with respect to the rent of the said G building. The defendant used the remainder of the rent of the above underground buildings with the approval of L who is the representative of the above management body, as repair allowances, food expenses of employees, etc., using the remainder of the rent of the above underground buildings, with the approval of L, as repair allowances, food expenses of employees, etc., and I stated that the defendant used part of the management expenses with the approval of the management body, but after the defendant filed a complaint, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Then, this case.