Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from September 2009 to October 29, 201, worked as the seal leader in the victim “C” corporation located in the G, which had been engaged in the management of painting, tools, etc. from September 2009 to October 29.

From the beginning of August 201 to the middle of October 201 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) on behalf of the said victim company, at the workplace of the said victim company, up to 50 page 50,000 in total market value; (b) around 10,000 in vehicles for the total market value of KRW 30,000 in the market value; (c) on behalf of the said victim company, up to 80,000 in total, 10 in vehicles for the market value; and (d) on behalf of the said victim, the Defendant embezzled 1,000 won in the vehicle, and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment of the police's statement against E and F, the defendant asserts to the effect that he did not embezzled because he/she purchased the case at his/her own expense because he/she would bring about his/her house because the case of compliance with the victim's company, which he/she kept in his/her business, was broken out.

The intention of illegal acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another's property in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as his/her own property, and there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

Even if the intent of illegal acquisition is recognized, there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition, and as such, it is not necessary to deduct the amount of compensation or preservation after the fact from the amount of embezzlement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399, May 27, 2010). In addition, if the Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the Defendant has brought about to be utilized even for parts rather than for the purpose of sale” (it refers to 76 pages of investigation record), the Defendant intended to substitute another used goods for the used goods, and the Defendant actually replaced that.