A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 10 million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

Around March 15, 2013, the Defendant, a representative director of the D Accounting Corporation, embezzled the instant check number, which is assessed to be unfair in the market price, because it is difficult to pay the check amount on the date of payment as the victim’s ownership, at the G cafeteria near the headquarters of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of the F Accounting Corporation (hereinafter “F”), the check number I issued by F from the victim H, the check number I, the face value of KRW 1,00,00,000, and the check number No. 1 of the publishing public column, and the check number No. 1 of the issued public column, are kept in custody. On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily returned the check number from the financial director of the F F head office to J of the F head office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of the current number of shares, audit report, each loan certificate, each stock security contract, certified transcript of corporate register, transcript of register, audit report, content certificate, and receipt of an application for destruction of the check form

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

2. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse.

1. Although the summary of the assertion was voluntarily returned by the Defendant to J the check of this case that the Defendant was requested to keep from the victim, the Defendant believed that the Defendant did not have the right to retain the check of this case that was delivered to the victim for financing, regardless of his/her economic interests, returned to F F F’s financial director J, an issuer of the check of this case, regardless of his/her economic interests, and thus, cannot be said to have had the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition of embezzlement of the check of this case.

2. Determination:

A. The relevant legal doctrine is a crime established when a person who keeps another’s property embezzled the said property. The act of embezzlement as a constituent element of embezzlement refers to any act of realizing an intent to acquire illegal property.