However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant had been engaged in the business of using the F’s corporate bank account (number : G) in the name of the victim E in Ansan-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, the Defendant agreed to conduct the PP business along with the victim E, and has engaged in the business of using the F’s corporate bank account (number : G) in order to purchase PP materials.

On July 14, 2015, the Defendant released 301,000 won in cash from the above account and was in custody for the victim on his business, and consumed it for personal use, such as the value of the speech, at the time of Ansan-si.

In addition, from around that time to August 28, 2015, the Defendant embezzled a total of KRW 5,087,600 by the same way in the same way from Anyang-si, etc. 52 times, as indicated in the List of Crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each police statement protocol to E;

1. Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

1. The suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act fails to recover from damage caused by reason of sentencing, and the Defendant’s liability is not minor in light of the background of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, but is determined as ordered in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the fact that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine and the scale of damage.