A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. From August 29, 2011 to March 31, 2012, the Defendant, as the head of the overall team of the Victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in Jeju (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) from around August 29, 201, has engaged in the overall management of the company, such as the management of employees and various expenses, accounting, and the management of corporate cards.

On September 17, 2011, the Defendant had access to the Internet banking site by using the computer at the victim company’s office, transferred 2.4 million won from the victim company’s name corporate account (CF) to the Defendant’s pro-Japanese bank account (CF), and re-transfer the money from the Defendant’s living female H to the Defendant’s account in his name, and used it for personal purposes, such as entertainment expenses, etc., by withdrawing it from the Defendant’s living woman H, and used it for the Defendant’s personal purposes, as shown in attached Table 2(1). From that time to February 14, 2012, the Defendant embezzled 37,117,500 won in total by using the Defendant’s account in the name of the JJ and the Defendant’s pro-Japanese bank’s name, etc., on a total of 25 occasions by using the same method.

2. Since the Defendant was engaged in accounting and corporate card management as the general team leader of the victim company’s company, there was an occupational duty that could not use the corporate card in the name of the victim company for personal purposes.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 2011, the Defendant purchased drinking water equivalent to KRW 33,00 from the point of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of West, and settled the price with the victim corporate card (SC Bank SCC SCC SK) that the Defendant had been in his/her custody, from that time to January 23, 201, and purchased each individual item of KRW 9,51,448 in total on 62 occasions, such as the entry of the List of Crimes (2) in attached Table 2, and settled the price with the above corporate card.

As a result, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the above amount in violation of occupational duties, and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount from the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1..