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

The “D” operated by the victim C from Sep. 23, 2013 to Jan. 2, 2016 has been engaged in the sales and collection of the said company’s internal drugs as a wholesale store operator.

On May 2014, the Defendant: (a) collected 500,000 won of the price of the goods from the Fanyang-gu, Soyang-gu; (b) was used for personal purposes at that time; and (c) was used for personal purposes at that time; (d) from that time to September 2014, the Defendant embezzled 22,110,000 won in total by using the method of collecting the price of the goods for the intra-party drugs nine times in total and using it for personal purposes, such as personal debt repayment, as described in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. An investigation report (main sentence, attachment of a list of crimes), an investigation report (Submission of a list of transaction details), an investigation report ( telephone investigation), and a criminal investigation report (Attachment of G submitted data which are a complainant);

1. Certificates of deposit transactions;

1. Details of transactions and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the selection of punishment for the crime, comprehensively, selection of imprisonment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of recommended punishment] Type 1 (4.10 million won or less) of Article 62-2 of the Framework Field 1 (4.10 million won or less) [No person subject to special sentencing] / [decision of sentence] : The defendant embezzled the amount of money that he/she has been in custody for the victim in the course of his/her duties; the crime is not good; the amount of damage is about 22 million won; circumstances favorable to the fact that he/she is not agreed with the victim; recognition of mistake and reflects the fact that he/she is favorable to the fact that he/she has paid 6 million won to the victim (the defendant must deduct 4.8 million won from the amount of damage); however, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has been punished for the same crime).