except that the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is an auditor of the victim D Co., Ltd. in the previous North Korea-Eup, and has been engaged in the business of depositing cash in the account in the former bank account in the name of the said company among the proceeds of restaurant and store operated by the victim Co., Ltd. in E located in the same location.

On December 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was engaged in business on behalf of the company in order to deposit KRW 5.6 million in cash among the profits from the operation of stores and restaurants in the above E, into the account of the previous North Bank in the name of the said company; (b) deposited only KRW 3.85 million around that time into the account of the said North Bank; and (c) consumed the remainder of KRW 1.75 million for personal purposes, such as payment of credit card bills, child support, etc. at regular Eup/Myeon.

From around that time to May 20, 2016, the Defendant consumed KRW 2,8150,000,00,000, in mind, the sum of the proceeds of the restaurant and store store kept for the company by the same method seven times in front-Eup, such as the list of crimes in attached Form.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F;

1. An investigation report (Analysis of transaction details in a statement of account transactions);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the specifications of transactions in the accounts in the former bank in the name of D, and copies of the specifications of transactions in the accounts in the former bank in the name of G;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment] Type 1 (100 million won or less) (1-10 months to be mitigated) [the person who has been specially mitigated] in the mitigated area, or the case where significant damage was restored (the decision of sentencing] the amount of the embezzlement of this case, the amount of the embezzlement of this case, the amount of the embezzlement of this case, the amount of money equivalent to the embezzlement of this case returned to the damaged company, and the representative director of the victimized company expressed his/her intent that he/she would not want the defendant's punishment (the opinion of the damaged company is expressed