The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The Defendant, from around December 20, 2010, has been engaged in the inspection of the said industry company’s motor vehicle as a person who works from “F” in the operation of the victim E in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu as the inspector.

On September 23, 2011, when the Defendant was requested to conduct a car inspection by G, the Defendant embezzled the total amount of KRW 121,000,00, which is KRW 7,833,50,000, from around that time to December 11, 2015, from around 200 to around 52 times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, for the purpose of occupational embezzlement of the amount of KRW 121,00,00, which was paid by the said G to the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant without the consent of the victim.

2. Determination

A. The name of the crime constituting the facts charged in the instant case is “occupational embezzlement,” and the summary thereof is that “The Defendant, who is a customer, embezzled the expenses for the inspection by proxy to pay to the victim of G (hereinafter “G”) (hereinafter “the instant inspection agent”) under the Defendant’s passbook without the consent of the victim.”

B. The subject of embezzlement should be the custodian of another’s property. However, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, namely, the custodian’s status, and the Defendant’s “the status as custodian” as to the expenses incurred by the instant prosecutor’s agent, should be recognized.

In addition, the custody of property in embezzlement means the state of actual or legal control over the property and the custody of the property should be based on the consignment relationship. However, it does not require that it is established by a contract such as lending and borrowing of use, lease, delegation, etc., but can also be established by the management of affairs, customs, cooking, good faith principle, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7610 Decided January 12, 2006).

The court's specific determination is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., the following circumstances.