Defendant

Gyeongnam-do

Eastern Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jin-he et al.

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

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

As the representative director of Nonindicted Company 4, the Defendant is a person who exercises overall control over the business of said Company, such as the management, execution, and operation of funds.

On August 5, 2008, the Defendant embezzled KRW 9,501,80 in total by the same method eight times from around that time until January 21, 2009, as shown in [Attachment Table 5-12] to pay KRW 1,401,790 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 3 after being registered in the wage ledger as if he was an employee of the above company, even though Nonindicted 3, who was an infant of the Defendant, was in the custody of the company’s funds for the above company for the business at the office of Nonindicted Company 4 located in Changwon-si ( Address omitted), even though he did not work in the above company.

1. Partial statements of the defendant in the first protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 3 in the court

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the second trial record, Nonindicted 1 (person outside the public prosecution) and Nonindicted 2’s statement in the third trial record

1. Part concerning Non-Indicted 1 (exploitant: Non-Indicted 1) in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Each investigation report (each reference material attached and report);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

The defendant and his defense counsel, even if the non-indicted 3 did not work in the non-indicted 4 company from June 20, 2008 to December 31, 2008, performed the management work of the company website in the form of home-based work, and when the defendant's instructions are given, he worked in the company office at any time to check the computer system, re-establish program, replace parts, etc., and the defendant recognized the non-indicted 3's work performed during the above period as the work of the company, and paid the non-indicted 9,501,80 won to the non-indicted 3 eight times, such as the No. 501,80 of the annexed crime list No. 5 to 12. Thus, the defendant asserts that there was no fact that he embezzled the above money for business

The following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① the amount equivalent to the wages paid by the defendant to the company according to the non-indicted 2's cadastral records that non-indicted 3 did not work for the company, ② the non-indicted 3 did not work for the company between June 20, 2008 and December 31, 2008. Even if the defendant affirmed the work such as correction of the company's homepage or the work on the job using the computer at home, the defendant's assertion that the defendant provided the same amount as the above work from March 1, 208 to June 19, 208, to the company from June 2008 to June 19, 2008, and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant provided the same kind of labor as the above work, such as assembly, processing, etc., to the company from around 10 to 1008 to June 208, 208.

Of the facts charged in this case, even though Non-Indicted 3, who was the defendant's children while working in the office of Non-Indicted 4 located in Changwon-si ( Address omitted) around April 5, 2008, did not work in the above company, he entered it in the wage ledger as if he was an employee of the above company, and deposited KRW 1,403,370 in the account in the name of Non-Indicted 3 as wages, and then he embezzled it by depositing KRW 9,327,46 in the same way as shown in the separate crime list Nos. 1 through 4, 13, 14, 15 during the period from around that time to April 5, 2009.

Comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence and the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted on December 17, 2010, SIMF 2008 (2008 Seoul National Franchising Machinery) and the written or image of each photograph attached to the defense counsel’s opinion, it is recognized that Nonindicted 3 was present at Nonindicted Company 4 from March 1, 2008 to June 19, 2008, and from January 3, 2009 to June 19, 2009, and participated in the exercise of the 2008 Seoul National Franchising Machinery Co., Ltd. as an employee of Nonindicted Company 4.

In light of the above facts of recognition, the statement by Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant embezzled KRW 9,327,446 over seven occasions, such as the list of offenses Nos. 1 through 4, 13, 14, and 15 attached hereto, and the documents containing such statement are hard to believe and there is no other evidence to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of occupational embezzlement in relation to such a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of

[Attachment]

Judges in the form of trial