Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From September 1, 2014, the Defendant is a director of the Medical Devices Wholesale Business Group E (hereinafter “E”) operated by the victim D located in the Incheon Southern-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “E”) from around September 1, 2014, who has been engaged in the business of selling, etc. the WIG-free oral equipment (name F) sold by the said company on behalf of the victim.

around January 6, 2015, the Defendant supplied the above WIG-free oral equipment (name F of goods) to H, a company located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, and received KRW 876,000 from the price for the storage for the victim and received the request for return from the injured party at that time, and thus, the Defendant refused to return it and embezzled it, and thereafter thereafter thereafter thereafter, the Defendant thereafter received a request for return from the injured party.

2. By March 2, 200, a total of KRW 9,452,50,00, as stated in the list of offenses, was embezzled by refusing to return to the victim while on duty for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, I, J, K and L;

1. Application of statutes to each business registration certificate, each Kakao Stockholm dialogue, each e-mail, Kakao Stockholm dialogue, each transaction statement, each electronic tax invoice, each electronic tax invoice, the results of the bank transfer, the detailed descriptions of the transaction, the detailed descriptions of the transfer, the details of the transfer, and the contents of the KaKaka Stockholm Stockholm dialogue (from March 2014 to January 2015).

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 356 and 366 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel, and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel are separate enterprises run by the Defendant’s husband and wife who is not the victim. The amount equivalent to the instant embezzlement is all used for the expenses of E to obtain personal benefits, and the Defendant did not embezzled the said money.

The argument is asserted.

According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant is an employee of M&A (hereinafter “M”) operated by the victimized person.