The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, from around December 2007 to April 2008, from around September 2009 to around April 201, 2010, was engaged in the so-called “E” oil sales and collection business of the said “E” in the oil company operated by the victim D in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around September 2009 to April 201.

On December 18, 2007, the Defendant collected KRW 362,000, which was supplied to the customer and was in custody for the victim. At that time, the Defendant consumed the amount for personal use at the seat of Seoul city in accordance with the mind.

In addition, from around that time to December 31, 2009, the Defendant used the total sum of KRW 22,499,596 as stated in the annexed List of Crimes for the personal use of the victim for the victim. Around that time, the Defendant used the same amount for personal use at the seat of Seoul City.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Determination

A. The court determined that the defendant's status is not the former but the latter, in full view of the following circumstances as to whether the defendant has established a business entrustment relationship with D and has been engaged in the oil sales and collection business for D, or whether he/she has been separated from D and can be viewed as an independent business operator who has operated the business separately, and whether he/she can be viewed as an independent business operator who has operated the business separately.

The reasons are as follows.

① D has the credit payment claim of KRW 16,345,00 against the Defendant for the period of 1st quarter of the annexed crime list in the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Ghana 343691 (Counterclaim) where a law firm was appointed as a litigation agent, and the Defendant had a claim of KRW 16,345,00.

pointing out, the above credit payment was sought.

On the premise that the defendant is a counter-party to the oil supply contract or the oil supply transaction supplied by D, it is not different that there is a civil debt relationship between D and the defendant, such as oil supply and payment.