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.

[2015 Highest 8878] The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the business of delivering milk and collecting milk at “D agency” operated by the victim C at the port of Busan Island.

On November 2013, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 14,032,470, which was arbitrarily consumed by the daily living expenses, etc. around that time while he/she kept in custody for the victim, as shown in the crime sight table, from around December 2014 to around December 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed and embezzled the sum of KRW 14,032,470, as shown in the crime sight table.

[2016 Highest 8149] On October 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft by taking advantage of the difference in office employees in the office to foster the 7th floor of KB non-life insurance located in the Dong-dong, Busan, Dong-gu, Busan, by taking advantage of the difference in office employees in the 450,000 won in the victim F’s book; and (b) committed a theft by taking advantage of the difference in office employees in the 7th floor of KB non-life insurance located in the Dong-dong, Busan

Summary of Evidence

[2015 Highest 8878]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Confirmation of the amount receivable, monthly settlement of accounts (2016 highest 8149);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to attachment of ctv video recording pages at the scene of crime);

1. Relevant Articles 356, 355(1) (the point of occupational embezzlement) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the scope of the final sentence due to the aggravation of punishment [the scope of the punishment for each of the instant crimes according to the aggravation of punishment] is defective in the scope of the punishment due to the aggravation of punishment for the crimes under Article 62(1) [the scope of the punishment for the crimes under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution] No. 1 of the basic area (from April 1 to April 4) [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the scope of the punishment for the crimes under Article 2 of the Act on the Larceny of General Property] [the scope of the punishment for the crimes under Article 62(1) [the person subject to special mitigation] of the punishment for the punishment for the crimes under Article 62(1)