The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On September 12, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the semiconductor chips, which he/she developed, liquidated the relationship with the victim company and developed, as the defendant attempted to increase the capital at the office of the victim dispute resolution committee (hereinafter “victim company”) in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 201-31, were likely to be successful.

Around September 13, 2012, the Defendant was found to have been unable to walk an independent way by making a decision and using it, and around September 13, 2012, at the above office of the victim company, the said F is attracting investment money from "G" companies, and KRW 215,773,500 is deposited in the passbook of the victim company name bank (Account Number H). The above F is recovered from some of the above F amount under the pretext of a half-year payment. The Defendant was in charge of the fund-raising business of the victim company at the time of the above corporate passbook.

With the knowledge of the existence of I, the victim corporation head of the Tong and the seal affixed by the above I, withdraw money equivalent to the price to be paid to the transaction company of the victim company in the name of the defendant company, and transfer the money to the defendant company's personal name, and changing the product being developed by the defendant company to the "J", its own own mark, which is used for the commercialization of the product being developed by the defendant company, and using it in direct development

On the same day, the Defendant, at a Korean bank located in the same day, embezzled the amount of KRW 90,000,000 out of the balance 109,425,168 of the said corporate account to the personal account of the victim company or the Defendant’s single bank account at his own discretion after remitting the amount of KRW 109,425,168 of the said corporate account to the victim company or the Defendant’s single bank account.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, the Defendant wired L/C money from September 21, 2012 to December 24, 2012 to L/C in its own name, not in the company’s name.