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

The Defendant was the actual operator of the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”).

1. Occupational embezzlement;

A. On November 28, 201, the Defendant received KRW 200 million from the office of the victimized Company located in Pyeongtaek-si to the Industrial Bank of Korea account in the name of the victimized Company as of November 25, 201, and received KRW 130 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea account in the name of the victimized Company as of November 25, 201, for the victimized Company, in the course of the occupational custody, he/she thought at the time of lending KRW 1.3 million from the damaged Company’s account to F operator G, who is the shareholder and the customer of the victimized Company, at his/her own discretion. November 29, 2011, the Defendant delivered KRW 130 million from G F to D, which is the Defendant’s another neighboring company in the operation of the Defendant, and received a false tax invoice from D to the damaged Company on December 1, 2011, and then arbitrarily transferred the amount of KRW 130 million from the Industrial Bank account of the victimized Company to D Company’s account to 130 million account.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled KRW 130 million, which was owned by the victimized company, for business purposes.

B. On January 18, 2012, the Defendant received a false tax invoice as if he were supplied with steel materials worth KRW 40 million from D, a business entity other than the Defendant’s operation, at the above office of the victimized Company, and then deducted KRW 40 million from the corporate bank account in the name of the victimized Company from the method of remitting it to the corporate bank account in the name of D, and then wrongfully used it for the personal purpose of D and the Defendant’s personal use and embezzled it for business purpose.

C. On March 15, 2012, the Defendant received a false tax invoice in the name of the victimized Company, as if it were supplied with steel materials equivalent to KRW 41,947,974 at the above victimized Company’s office from D, a business entity adjacent to another steel company operated by the Defendant.