beta
Text
Defendant
B A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million and by a fine of KRW 5 million, respectively.
The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B From September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013, and from July 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013, Defendant A is a person who has been engaged in the business of managing customers and receiving alcoholic beverage payments while working in the limited partnership company of the damage company of each alcoholic beverage wholesale business located in the Busan Geum-gu from July 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013.
1. Around August 16, 2013, Defendant B, who received KRW 2.5 million from the business owner of “F,” the business owner of the “F,” and was in custody for the victimized company, and then consumed for the cost of living in Busan. From June 25, 2013 to August 30, 2013, Defendant B embezzled KRW 11,12,40,00 in total of alcoholic beverage payments received from each business owner of “I,” as indicated in the List of Offenses (Defendant B).
2. On December 10, 2012, Defendant A received KRW 10,040 from the proprietor of the “J” business, the business partner, and embezzled KRW 14,753,240,00 in total, as indicated in the separate crime list (Defendant A) from December 10, 2012 to August 30, 2013, the Defendant used KRW 14,753,240 as daily living expenses, while he/she was in custody for the said business for the said company.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of the witness M;
1. Each police statement made to N orO;
1. A certificate of deposit, a certificate of deposit, a certificate of deposit, a certificate of deposit, a transaction by passbook, a transaction by an O passbook, F, and a statement of alcoholic beverage passbook in P;
1. Each police investigation report (in relation to the telephone calls of alcoholic beverage traders, the result of the bank account tracking) [the defendants alleged that they did not constitute embezzlement even if they received money as criminal facts because they had a share in the damaged company, but they could not be exempted from the liability of embezzlement unless they arbitrarily consumed the liquor amount received from the customer regardless of whether the defendants had a share in the victimized company].