However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant received KRW 3-50,000 per month from 201 to 2014 to 3-50,000 as membership fees from 17 members of the above friendship group, such as C, the victim, etc., from the victim of the foregoing friendship group from 2001 to 2014, and used them as background investigation expenses, activity expenses, etc., and managed KRW 24,00,000,000 as 10,000 foot and 14,000 foot installment, respectively.

On June 2010, while the Defendant kept friendship cards for the victims, the Defendant used the said KRW 14 million as collateral for the said KRW 14 million savings at the middle-term commercial bank branch located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul as the same 843, and used the said KRW 10 million savings as collateral for the said KRW 10 million at the same place on June 20, 2012 and used the said KRW 10 million for personal purposes, such as debt repayment, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A report on investigation (Presentation of a certificate of confirmation as a suspect), and the application of loans-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) and the basic area (less than KRW 100 million), there is a need for strict punishment of Defendant in light of the following: (a) imprisonment with prison labor for six months; (b) suspension of execution 2 years; (c) community service 120 hours; and (d) the victims and victims have not reached an agreement or have not recovered from damage.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the defendant was the first offender, and the defendant determined the same punishment as the order, taking into account all of the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime.