Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, all of the Defendants are from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

Then, 2016 order 7465 (hereinafter “7465”) and 2017 order 3490 (hereinafter “3490”) are also deemed as follows.

Defendant

A as the actual president of the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) who is the representative director of the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in Busan Southern-gu, Busan-gu, who is engaged in overall management affairs, such as management of employees, the head of the company, and the management of corporate cards. Defendant B worked as an employee for the victimized Co., Ltd for a period of eight years from November 1, 2006 to February 28, 2015, the Defendants were in an internal relationship with each other.

1. Where an employee of a company in breach of occupational duty uses a corporation card in the name of the company, he/she shall use it for the business of the company and shall not use it for personal purposes, such as living expenses not related to the business of the company;

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to pay the Defendants’ living expenses, personal vehicle insurance premiums, etc. using a corporate card under the name of the victimized Company. Defendant A opened the victimized Company’s corporate card to Defendant B, Defendant B purchased 46,630 won from “J Burial” on April 5, 2009 (Sedong-gu, Busan) to pay the same amount as the Defendant’s personal living expenses, and Defendant B purchased 46,630 won from “J Burial” on April 5, 200, and made payment with the Defendant’s corporate card (L, hereinafter “L, M corporation card”) under the name of the victimized Company, and until September 7, 2013 [Attachment 2] through [Attachment 7] [Attachment 7] from September 7, 2013, as written in the list of crimes, using the same amount as the total amount of KRW 26,363,327 won for personal purposes, and acquired the same amount of financial benefits to the victimized Company.

[In this regard, Defendant A/Defense Counsel delegated the internal approval authority to Defendant A to the extent that the actual amnesty of the victimized Company was H, and that he delegated the internal approval authority to Defendant A, which is a co-defendant, without specific L and M corporation card use details.