2015 Highest 6349, 2015 Highest 6509(combined) Occupational Embezzlements

1. A;

2. B

Kim Yong-Nam (Court) (Court of Justice), Lee Young-Nam (Court of Justice), Lee Jong-Nam (Court of Justice), his/her term of office, him/her;

1. C Law Firm, Attorneys D and E (private ships for defendant A);

2. Law Firm F, Attorneys G (private ships for defendants B);

June 1, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months, and imprisonment of two years and six months, respectively.

Criminal facts)

[2015 Highest 6349] - Defendant A

The Defendant mainly introduces foreign professional axis players from the East Europe to the domestic professional axis, and is a person who works as a domestic agent in the same business relationship with Sarvia H, a sports transfer agent from the Republic of Korea, and B, from January 2013 to December 2014, is the victim of the Sungsan-gu I, Changwon-si, and without any actual disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of the Defendants’ right to defense, the following facts of the crime are modified and recognized ex officio without any changes in the indictment to the extent that it seems that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of the Defendants’ right to defense:

The representative director of J(hereinafter referred to as the "victim") who was in charge of the overall operation of the Gu, such as participation in the team and budget execution of the company.

With the introduction of H and the defendant, the defendant and the defendant set the down payment of the foreign professional axis players in a false or excessive manner, and made the victim group pay the down payment to the players, and made the victim group use the payment of the fee by collecting the return from the players, and made the defendant use the fee at a higher level than the fee actually set by the victim group and paid the fee to the defendant at a higher level than the fee actually set by the victim group. The defendant embezzled all or part of the fee paid to the victim group by the method of returning the defendant to B, and conspired to use it by dividing it.

1. B, at the beginning of February 2013, 2013 office of the victim's team, instructed the head of the division of the victim's team to strengthen the strategy of the victim's team to enter into a contract of entry of USD 150,00,00, which is a foreign player of the Korean nationality, and USD 300,000,000, which is an annual salary, which was introduced by the defendant, and the defendant demanded the above foreign players to return the down payment and received the consent.

On February 9, 2013, the head of the strategic strengthening division of the victim's team ordered by B entered into a contract on the condition that the above K, L and D & D 150,000 US dollars and annual salary of 300,000 US dollars at the office of the victim's team. The head of the accounting team of the victim's team entered the contract under the above contract around February 28, 2013.

A total of 325,620,000 won ($ 150,000) in each account in the name of 162,810,000 as down payment was deposited in each account in the name of 325,620,000.

After that, on March 11, 2013, the above foreign players transferred the sum of KRW 327,090,000 ($ 150,000) ($150,000) to the Defendant’s account. On the same day, the Defendant delivered KRW 150,000,000 ($ 300,000) out of the transferred money to B through B’s children. Around that time, B used money for personal purposes, and the Defendant used the remainder of the money returned from foreign players as above for personal purposes.

In collusion with B, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 325,620,000 from the victim group that B had been in custody on duty.

2. B: (a) around February 2014, when the former office of the victim group introduced Ma, who is a foreign player of the son’s nationality, to enter the victim group; (b) around February 2014, B entered into a contract for transfer fee of USD 50,000 with the Defendant and two persons among the transfer fee to be paid by the victim group; and (c) around April 2, 2014, the Defendant received 50,000 US dollars from the victim group to its own account; and (d) thereafter, transferred 20,00,000 US dollars from the victim group to the “N” account designated by B; and (d) the Defendant used it for personal purposes; and (e) the Defendant used 50,000 US dollars for the remaining personal purposes; and (e) the Defendant used 50,000 US dollars for the personal purpose.

As a result, the defendant and B conspired, and they embezzled US$ 50,000 for the victim's funds kept in their business.

3. B, around February 1, 2014, entered into a contract with Ma and down payment of USD 200,000, annual salary of KRW 300,000, a foreign player, which was introduced by the Defendant at the former office of the victim’s team, and the Defendant demanded that part of the down payment of the said foreign player be returned, and the Defendant demanded that M& return the down payment.

On January 9, 2015, the victim group deposited KRW 209,764,609 ($ 200,000) in the account in the name of M as down payment in accordance with the above contract, and M transferred KRW 209,764,609 to the defendant's account around January 9, 2015.

On January 12, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn 30,000,000 won out of the above remittance amount at a point outside the City Bank located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul. Around that time, B used it for personal purposes. The Defendant used the remaining money out of the above KRW 209,764,609 for personal purposes.

In collusion with B, the Defendant embezzled KRW 209,764,609 of the victim group's funds kept in his/her business.

4. B, around July 2014, entered into a contract of entry into a contract of 60,000 U.S. dollars and 25,000 U.S. dollars, a foreign player of Croatia nationality, at the office of the victim’s team, and demanded the Defendant to return part of the contract deposit of the said foreign player, and the Defendant was required to return the contract deposit to 0,000.

On July 17, 2014, the victim group deposited USD 60,000 in the account in 0 under the above contract as a down payment, and around the 31st day of the same month, 0 remitted USD 60,000 to the defendant's account.

On July 31, 2014, the Defendant released USD 20,000 and USD 40,000,000 in cash, and around that time, delivered KRW 40,000,000 in cash around the P hotel located in the window of Changwon-si to B for personal purposes. The Defendant used the remainder of USD 60,00 for personal purposes.

Accordingly, in collusion with B, the Defendant embezzled USD 60,000 of the funds of the victim group which was in his business custody.

[2015 Height6509] - Defendant B

From January 2013 to December 2014, the Defendant was a representative director in charge of the overall operation of the Gu, such as the participation of players and budget execution, by J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “victim’s team”), the victim of Sungwon-si, Changwon-si. A, and A is mainly a person who is a domestic representative in the same business relationship with 'H, the transfer of a foreign professional axis from the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea to the domestic professional axis.

1. A and co-offenders;

In the introduction of H and A, when the defendant and the foreign professional axis players are admitted to the victim group, he/she has set false or excessive down down down down down down down the contract deposit of the foreign players, and had the victim group pay it to the players. The part of the payment was divided and used in return from the players, and the victim group has paid the fee higher than the actually agreed fee, and then he/she has embezzled the funds of the victim group by returning the whole or part of the fee paid higher than the actually agreed fee.

A. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant instructed the head of the rescue team of the victim to enter into a contract for entry of the amount of USD 150,00,000, a foreign player of the Korean nationality, which was introduced by the head of the strategic strengthening division of the rescue team of the victim, and USD 300,000,00,000, the annual salary, which was introduced by the head of the rescue team of the victim. On February 2, 2013, A

On February 9, 2013, the head of the strategic strengthening division of the victim's team ordered by the defendant entered into a contract on the condition that the above K, L and down payment USD 150,000 and annual salary USD 300,000 at the office of the victim's team. The head of the accounting team of the victim's team entered the contract on February 28, 2013 under the above contract.

The sum of 162,810,000 won ($ 150,000) was deposited in the K and L account, respectively, as down payment. 325,620,000 won was deposited.

After that, on March 11, 2013, foreign players transferred 163,545,00 won (US$ 150,000) to A’s account each (US$ 327,090,000). On the same day, A delivered 150,000,000 out of the transferred money to the Defendant through the Defendant’s children. A used money for personal purposes around that time, and A used the remainder of 327,09,000,000 won that was returned from foreign players for personal purposes. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with A and the Defendant embezzled 325,620,000 won for the part of the victim who was under his/her occupational custody.

B. On February 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with A and B for transfer fee of USD 50,000, out of the transfer fee to be paid by the victim group, and entered into a contract with A and B for transfer fee of USD 100,000.

A around April 2, 2014, under the above contract, received USD 50,000, which is part of the fee from the victim group to its own account, and around that time, remitted 20,000,000 to the account in the name of "N" designated by the defendant, withdrawn 20,000,000 won in cash and delivered it to the defendant, and the defendant used it for personal purposes. At that time, A used the remainder of USD 50,00 for the personal purpose.

Accordingly, in collusion with the defendant, the defendant and A embezzled US$ 50,000 for the victim's self-help that the defendant had been in custody on duty.

C. On February 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract of entry to USD 200,000, annual salary of KRW 300,000, a foreign player, a foreign player introduced from A at the Gu office of the victim’s team; and (b) requested A to return part of the down payment of the said foreign player; and (c) requested A to return the down payment to M.

On January 12, 2015, the victim group deposited KRW 209,764,609 (US$ 200,000) into the account in the name of M as down payment pursuant to the above contract, and M transferred KRW 209,764,609 to the account of A around January 9, 2015. A around January 12, 2015, at a branch of the Si Tti Bank in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, withdrawn KRW 30,000,000 out of the above remittance amount in cash at a branch of the Si Tti Bank in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and then conveyed it to the Defendant for personal purpose. A used it for the personal purpose, and around that time, A used the remainder of KRW 209,764,609 for the personal purpose.

Accordingly, the defendant conspireds with Amph, and embezzled 209,764,609 won of the victim's self-help while in custody of the defendant on duty.

D. On July 2014, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract for entry of 0,00 U.S. dollars 60,000 and 25,000 U.S. dollars in Croatia’s nationality at the former office of the victim’s team; (b) demanded A to return part of the down payment of the said foreign player’s contract; and (c) demanded A to return the down payment to this effect.

On July 17, 2014, the victim group deposited USD 60,000 in the account in 0 under the above contract as a down payment, and around 31st of the same month, 0 remitted USD 60,000 to the account of A.

A around July 31, 2014, withdrawn US$ 20,000 and USD 40,000,000 in cash. A around that time, around that time, delivered the Defendant a cash of KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant for personal purposes, and A used the remainder of US$ 60,000 for personal purposes.

Accordingly, the defendant conspireds with A, and embezzled USD 60,000 for the victim's self-help group that the defendant had been under custody in the course of his business.

2. Crimes of embezzlement of funds of victim groups by the defendant;

(a) Embezzlement funds in the name of fees for transfer to foreign players;

On April 18, 2013, the Defendant entered the victim group with the introduction of K, L, and Q, a foreign player of the Republic of Korea, as stated in Section 1(a), at the Gu office of the victim group. However, as the (ju)R operated by the Defendant was in operation as a transfer set, the Defendant drafted a false contract that the victim group would pay 25,00 U.S. dollars 35,000 U.S. dollars, 20,000 U.S. dollars, and 96,601,200 U.S. dollars 20,000 U.S. dollars to each of the players.

On July 25, 2013, the Defendant directed the accounting officer of the victim's team to deposit KRW 108,157,500 in accordance with the aforementioned false contract. The Defendant transferred the above money to the account in the name of (ju) R and another company operated by the Defendant, and then embezzled KRW 108,157,50 of the victim's funds in the victim's team being kept in his/her business by using the purchase price of officetels purchased in the name of (ju)S.

(b) Embezzlement funds in the name of a new player and down payment;

On February 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around February 21, 2014, the Defendant: (b) had an employee in charge of contracts at the victim’s rescue team prepare a false entry contract regarding T and down payment of KRW 50 million, even though there is no need to pay the down payment to an individual of the athletes by taking a new stable player T into the victim’s rescue team.

On February 21, 2014, the Defendant instructed the head of the accounting team of the victim group to pay KRW 48,350,000 to the account in T’s name as contract deposit, and direction T to transfer the said funds to the account under his/her direction or deliver them after cash withdrawal. In accordance with such instruction, T is instructed.

On February 21, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million into an account in the name of a third party managed by the Defendant, and used it for personal purposes. On March 4, 2014, the Defendant received cash of KRW 10 million from T and used it for personal purposes, such as receiving and using it for cash of KRW 10 million from T, and embezzled KRW 30 million for funds of the victim group in his/her business custody for personal purposes.

On February 25, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 8 million of the fee for transfer to the victim group by U operator V, who is a sports transfer agent, even though the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 8 million of the fee for transfer to the victim group, the Defendant drafted a false contract to pay KRW 28 million of the fee for transfer to the victim, demanding that V “the above KRW 20 million should be added as the fee for transfer to cash return.”

On March 26, 2014, the Defendant instructed a person in charge of accounting of the victim group to pay KRW 308 million (28 million + KRW 2.8 million equivalent to 10% of the value added tax) to U on the basis of the aforementioned false contract, and V around that time withdrawn the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million from the above funds from the above capital and in cash of the U.S. and delivered it to the Defendant at the office of the victim group.

The Defendant embezzled KRW 20,000,000 from the victim’s funds kept in his/her business for personal purposes by using the above perjury, etc. received as above.

(d) Embezzlement of funds under the pretext of provisional payments;

The Defendant, within the scope necessary for the operation of the Gu group, voluntarily consumed funds for the operation of the Gu group of victims whose purpose and purpose are determined to be used within the scope of the operation of the Gu group, was used under the name of the representative director, provisional payment under the name of CO X, provisional payment under the name of Y, and provisional payment under the name of Y foreign supervisory Y, but was willing to arbitrarily use funds for the operation of the Gu group by submitting false receipts, etc. as if used

(1) On March 6, 2013, the Defendant embezzled the funds of the victim group by voluntarily using KRW 159,515,000 in total 19 times from around that time to December 16, 2013, as recorded in the list of crimes in the attached Table, in order to individually use KRW 10,000,000 owned by the victim who was engaged in the management of the company as a whole in the above company.

(2) On August 22, 2013, the Defendant, at the office of the victim group, embezzled funds of the victim group, which were kept in business by arbitrarily using KRW 34 million as shown in the attached Table II, from around that time to December 16 of the same year, by voluntarily using the amount of KRW 34 million, as shown in the attached Table II, while being used as a provisional payment in the name of Y, a foreign supervisor, from the accounting staff of the victim group.

(3) On October 18, 2013, the Defendant, at the office of the victim’s team, embezzled the funds of the victim’s team in the course of business by voluntarily using KRW 25 million as indicated in the annexed crime list from around that time to November 15 of the same year, as in the annexed crime list, while having received KRW 10,000 in cash from the accounting staff of the victim’s team to be used as a provisional payment in the coco-in X name.

Summary of Evidence

[2015 Highest 6349]

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning the Z;

1. Each investigation report (number 13,16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39);

1. Full certificate of the registered matters;

[2015 Highest 6509]

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of a witness A, AB, AC, and A;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant B by the prosecution (the fifth and sixth examination), and each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant B by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement of X, V, AD, Z, and AE, the prosecutor's office's statement of 1. Each investigation report (the second investigation report of 4,7,19,20,21,23,25,26,27,28,29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 77)

1. Full certificate of the registered matters;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (a) and 30 (a point of joint occupational embezzlement) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of joint occupational embezzlement)

0 Selection of each Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion and determination under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion and judgment related to joint criminal conduct with A

(a) A case concerning the return of down payment to foreign players (related to subparagraph 1-a, c., d. and d.)

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

① The Defendant received money in relation to the return of down payment to foreign players is limited to KRW 150,00,000 as stated in subparagraph 1-A (a) of the crime, and the Defendant did not receive KRW 30,000,000 as stated in subparagraph 1-C (d) and KRW 40,000 as stated in subparagraph 1-D (d) from A.

② Foreign players paid the down payment and annual salary, and the said players paid the down payment with the fee for transfer fee to H, which is agreed to pay the down payment to the foreign players. Thus, this is not the funds of the victim group, but is not in a position to determine the down payment or annual salary of the players in collusion with the Defendant.

③ KRW 150 million received from A is that H invests in the Defendant’s projects related to North Korea.

(2) Determination

(1) A’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and the statement at this court is used as evidence as to the part on which the defendant received KRW 30 million in relation to Ma deposit and KRW 40 million in relation to 0 million in relation to the down payment.

A’s statements are relatively consistent, 7) considering the following facts: (a) A’s statements are relatively consistent; (b) the developments leading up to and timing and place of giving money; (c) the statement was considerably detailed; (d) the Ma deposit-related KRW 30 million, and the 40 million down payment-related KRW 30 million, each of which was received by the Defendant; and (d) the Ma-related KRW 30 million was part of the money received by the Defendant; and (e) there is no reason to make a false statement if the Ma-related KRW 3760,000 was not paid with the smaller portion of the money received by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant provided money as stated in the facts constituting a crime is credibility. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not receive the said KRW 30 million and KRW 40 million is rejected.

② If A does not have the right to determine the terms and conditions of the instant act and the money returned by A is not the money of the victim’s team, A appears to have been delegated with a significant comprehensive scope of the terms and conditions of the agreement among players in Korea (it is difficult to determine the profit sharing ratio of A and A even according to H’s legal statement, if he/she serves as a simple interpretation, it is difficult to determine the profit sharing ratio). ① Even if a person engages in the instant act according to H’s instruction (in full view of the evidence, it is deemed that A determined the entire amount of the instant act and paid money to the Defendant, rather than to pay money to the Defendant with direction or approval of H). Accordingly, even if a player returned the contract amount as a pure provision of transfer fee to H pursuant to the agreement with the Defendant, the Defendant and the Defendant would not be deemed to have been aware that the contract deposit was partially refunded to the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant would not be deemed to have been paid the contract deposit and the Defendant would have been paid the contract deposit.

Considering that the amount of KRW 150 million received from A on March 11, 2013 is the investment amount of H with respect to the business related to North Korea, H, which was merely moving to the relevant stable player, did not have any reason to invest KRW 150 million in the inter-Korean exchange business, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, H borrowed the sum of KRW 120,000 from January 201 to January 2013, 2013 at the expense of the Defendant’s wife, it is difficult to view that C Defendant received KRW 150,000 from the player’s deposit at the time of making a statement at each prosecutor’s office on September 17, 2015, and October 13, 2015, the part of the investment amount of KRW 150,000,000 was 150,0000 from the Defendant’s wife’s deposit and part of the investment amount of KRW 150,000,00.

The defendant's above assertion that H has invested also cannot be accepted.

(b) M Transfer Fee (related to paragraph 1-b)

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant's money in relation to M transfer fee is only 20 million won transferred to an account under the name of N, and there is no other fact that he/she received 20 million won in cash.

(2) M in return for joining the victim group, three-year group, three-year group, and three-year group, one of which belongs to the victim group.

In order to solve the legal problems with the old organization, the fee for transfer of USD 100,00 is set.

③ The above KRW 20 million, which was remitted to the account, is the Defendant’s lending from H.

(2) Determination

① Examining whether A paid KRW 20 million in cash to the Defendant, the Defendant’s assertion that A paid KRW 20 million in cash is reliable, and is not accepted, in view of the following: (a) the statements made by A are relatively consistent; (b) the developments leading up to giving money; (c) the timing and timing to pay money; and (d) the statements made by A on the place where A were considerably specific; and (c) there is no reason for A to make a false statement while taking charge of his punishment.

② Of USD 100,000, KRW 50,000,00 is purely considered as fee for the part that was entered the account without resolving the legal problems of M players and paying the interest rate. According to the evidence, it is recognized that the above player, who was the former team, entered the team without interest rate, and that the victim’s participation in the above team without interest rate, was not consistent with A’s statement on the decision to pay the above fee for resolution of the problem, the prior demand for return thereof, or the situation at the time. However, even if KRW 50,000,00 was paid from the former team on April 2, 2014, the Defendant paid USD 40,000 on that day, and then transferred the fee to N’s account designated by the Defendant (Evidence 1431-1436 of the evidence record), and the Defendant paid KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) were paid to the Defendant.

③ Examining whether the money transferred to N from H was borrowed, the Defendant’s assertion that the said money was borrowed from H is difficult to view that it was excessive, as seen earlier, as long as it was deemed that the aforementioned fee was set, and ① the Defendant’s above KRW 20 million was recognized by the prosecution on October 13, 2015 as being refunded part of the fee for transfer (Evidence No. 2121 of the evidence record) cannot be accepted.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment concerning the crime of embezzlement of funds held by the victim

(a) On the pretext of fees for transferring foreign players (related to subparagraph 2-a (a) of Article 2 of the Facts of the crime);

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

After the victim group offsets loans equivalent to USD 120,00,00 which the defendant possessed by H by entering K, L, and Q, a foreign player, with the obligation to pay the victim's fees, the defendant who received the prior payment of the above fee for the transfer fee after the victim group paid USD 100,000,000 in advance.

(2) Determination

(1) However, if the Defendant used to offset the Defendant’s claim held by H and the obligation to pay for the transfer fee, the Defendant would have been required to make such statement from the beginning. However, the Defendant made a false statement when attaching a false confirmation document to AF that he paid for the transfer fee from AF. ② The Defendant stated that he did not borrow money from AF at the time of the prosecutor’s statement on September 17, 2015, and that the Defendant stated that he was forged and that he did not make any statement about the claim relationship with H (Evidence 1529-1530 pages), while he stated that he was also guilty (Evidence 1529-1530 pages), 13, and 13, even at the time of the prosecutor’s statement at the time of the prosecutor’s statement on October 13, 2015, that the Defendant stated that the transfer fee of L, K, and Q players was not related to the claim against H (Evidence 2116 pages), and that the Defendant’s testimony consistent with the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept the above assertion.

(b) The name of the new player and the down payment (related to Article 2-2 (b) of the Act);

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although the victim group wanted to receive T players, the amount of free contract players allocated to the victim group was collected at the request of the defendant, and then extracted the above players from AG group at the request of the defendant, and only used approximately KRW 30 million out of the down payment as Uririg subsidy, university fostering subsidy, AH team's electric field storage bonus, etc., and there was no fact that the down payment was embezzled.

(2) Determination

Even if T players paid down payment with the intention of entering the victim group, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant embezzled the down payment of KRW 30 million after allowing T players to pay the down payment, in view of the following: ① use of KRW 30 million out of the down payment regardless of T’s intent; ② withdrawal of approximately KRW 20 million out of the down payment via the borrowed account; ③ the victim group and T, ③ the professional axis player contract between the victim group and T is not set at all (Evidence No. 1573). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. In addition, the Defendant’s assertion related to the fee for transferring the part-time players into Korea (Article 2-3(c) of the Criminal Act).

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

It was true that the defendant made 20 million won a fluent fly fly to U.S.'s fluor, but this was used to make the case to the former fluor's persons related to the former fluor's team and the victim fluor's players, and there was no intention to commit embezzlement against the defendant.

(2) Determination

However, it is reasonable to view that the embezzlement is also made in view of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily raised funds through U, and ② even if the case was held in the Chinese old group for the sake of the victim's rescue, this is not a legitimate execution of funds.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(d) Relation to the name of provisional payments (related to subparagraph 2 (d) of the facts of crime);

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since the representative director used all the remainder except 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18 knife knife knife knife in relation to the advance payment, there was no embezzlement (the part recognizing the above embezzlement, and the sum of provisional payment in the name of Y 34 million won, and X 25 million won in total, and not used individually for personnel expenses).

(2) Determination

① The amount brought by the Defendant as the provisional payment for the representative director was larger than the amount indicated in the above criminal facts (the sum of the provisional payment for the representative director brought by the Defendant in light of the criminal facts attached to the Defendant’s request for a warrant of detention), ② However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s statement made by the prosecutor on October 14, 2015, the Defendant’s representative director must deduct the flight expenses for the company’s team, the special allowances for the team, the encouragement of the AI club, and the transfer fee, etc. from the amount paid by the representative director, the portion of the charge list attached to the warrant of detention was identified as the part that the Defendant used for the original purpose of the provisional payment, and the part that recognized the embezzlement of the part that the Defendant was charged in this case only with the part that the Defendant recognized as the Defendant (Evidence evidence record 2135-2136 pages), and ③ the part that the Defendant did not clearly disclose the representative director by making a false document related to the provisional payment system and did not use the counter-payment.

The Defendants’ crime of this case committed each of the instant offenses on the grounds of sentencing is to undermine the fairness and transparency of the foreign players’ entry process and to weaken the finances of the professional axis group. Accordingly, the Defendants’ total amount embezzled by the Defendants falls short of KRW 535,384,60,00 (= KRW 325,620,000 + USD 209,764,609) and USD 110,000 ($60,000 + USD 50,000). In addition, the Defendant’s punishment is determined as per the order, taking into account the following factors into account:

○ Defendant A’s embezzlement amounting to KRW 260 million (i.e., KRW 150 million + KRW 40 million + KRW 30 million + KRW 40 million) all remainders other than the Defendant used (the Defendant alleged that it was delivered to H or used for the performance of his duties; however, there is no evidence supporting the above assertion). As a result, the Defendant had a foreign player, such as H gain profit by committing the instant crime. Meanwhile, the Defendant appears to have failed to refuse the demand of H and B; the Defendant appears to have actively cooperated with the investigation by recognizing all the crimes; the Defendant actively cooperateed with the investigation; the primary offender; the Defendant’s age, character, and family environment, etc.

○ Defendant B

The defendant, by taking advantage of his position, embezzled large amount of foreign players as above in the process, and received 260 million won out of the above embezzlement amount, and alone, 376,672,500 won (=108,157,500 won + 20,000,000 won + 159,515,000 won + 25,000 won + 34,000,000 won + 25,000 won + 25,000,000 won + 34,000,000 won + 25,000,000 won) out of the above embezzlement amount. Even if so, in light of the location or influence of the defendant's capital at the axis of North Korea, the defendant made efforts to eliminate such wrong practices in the process of his criminal investigation, but it appears that there were no other circumstances that the defendant had continued to recognize such improper practices in the process of his criminal investigation.

Judges Doo-rayia