2014 Highest 1618 Occupational Embezzlement

2014 Highest 1705(Joint Tax Accountant) Violation

○○ (1972)(1972), Company Board

Park Sang-hoon (criminals) and scarcitys (public trials)

Attorneys Kim Yong-chul (Korean National Assembly)

June 19, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Criminal facts

“2014 Highest 1618

The Defendant, from March 23, 2006 to September 2012, is an employee in charge of accounting of the victim A and the victim B established for the purpose of operating the air freight forwarding agency by setting its head office in sequence in Oraildong and Jeju Nowon-gu. In order, from March 23, 2006 to the employee in charge of managing the funds of the victim company.

Around November 6, 2006, the Defendant: (a) managed the public funds of the victim company using a large number of borrowed accounts, such as the account in the name of Kim○○○, a branch of the representative director of the victim company, with the bank account in the name of the victim company; (b) deposited the amount equivalent to KRW 150,000 of the funds of the victim company that was kept in business in the Jeju bank account in the name of Kim○○; and (c) embezzled the Defendant’s personal premium payment purpose from around that time to September 4, 2012; and (d) embezzled the amount of KRW 77,094,844, a total sum of KRW 161 times from among the accounts that managed the public funds of the victim company from around that time to September 4, 2012, by voluntarily withdrawing the amount of KRW 77,094,84

"2014 Highest 1705"

The Defendant, while working as an employee of a tax accountant office, has experienced knowledge related to tax agent business, was willing to provide tax agent business upon request by his son. On May 2012, 201, the Defendant received documents related to the global income tax return from 100,000 won from 201, from 2011 from 200 Gappppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp, and submitted them to 3 times in total from January 20, 201 to May 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant provided tax agent services even though he is not qualified as a certified tax accountant.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for a crime: Article 356 or 355 (1) of the Criminal Act;

Colonel), Article 22(1)1 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act (the point of issue of qualification for tax agent business), and each decision of imprisonment with prison labor.

1. Concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendant embezzled a considerable amount of money for a long time from the time of committing a crime for which more than six years have passed since it was difficult for the Defendant to use the same as the facts charged, taking account of the circumstances where the Defendant was in fact responsible for the revenue and expenditure of the relevant company, and the representative director also committed the same crime as the facts charged, so there is a high possibility of criticism. Furthermore, even if the representative director continued to commit a crime under the pretext of brain death, etc., he may withdraw the money from a large number of accounts used by the company to a personal account or a third party and use it for the personal purpose. However, even if the Defendant used the embezzled money, it is difficult to view that the Defendant used it as personal consumption, such as entertainment, etc., and even if he did not know that there was an urgent need to use it, it would be difficult to view that there was no other circumstances that the Defendant used it for the purpose of embezzlement, which would hinder the Defendant’s business by taking account of the fact that there was no other circumstances that the Defendant used it for the entire purpose of embezzlement.

[The Sentencing Criteria Group of Embezzlement]

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (100 million won) Aggravated area (limited to 10 months of imprisonment or 2 years and 3 months/special persons: Cases where the method of commission of crime is extremely poor)

【Criteria for Suspension of Execution】

Major reasons: Reasons for fraudulent conduct (where the method of criminal conduct is very poor, the agreement is not reached).

2. Two positive reasons, non-existence

General Reference Grounds: Three Grounds for Illegal Conducts (Influences, Mosings, Mosings, and Mosity)

one (not less than a suspended sentence of imprisonment)

There are not less than two major illegal grounds, and there are not less than two general illegal grounds and grounds for general pride.

Since there are two or more differences, it falls under the recommended area of penalty

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Kim Jong-min

1) After the discovery of the Defendant’s embezzlement in 2012, for the purpose of identifying the details of the vertical embezzlement between the Defendant and the Defendant and the representative director B, a corporation

The defendant was introduced to the above representative director, and the defendant's dynamics, etc. who introduced the defendant to the above representative director, filed a complaint on the grounds of the defendant's ability test, etc.

On December 2012, 2012, 100 million won was transferred to the above representative director in the name of the husband of the defendant, when the petition for accusation was not received immediately after the request was made.

Then, on July 2013, the above representative director submitted a written complaint to the investigation agency. The defendant and the injured party submitted the written complaint to the investigation agency.

and the time of remittance of the above money far more than July 2013, which is the starting point of the investigation upon the complaint, with respect to the amount of embezzlement;

The defendant also has transferred the above money to his family members who are aware of the defendant, and after the commencement of the investigation, the defendant met with the victim.

In addition to the details of the public prosecution's embezzlement, the fact that the contents of the work log and the portion of cash withdrawal suitable for the amount of the account payment have been recognized.

In full, the payment of the above money shall be made after the prosecution or after the commencement of the investigation, or shall be made in full after the commencement of the investigation.

It is difficult to recognize that the defendant was appropriated for such an agreement, and the defendant seems not to have tried to reach such an agreement.