The defendant shall make occupational embezzlement of KRW 33,000,000 to the applicant for compensation.

3. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) submitted to K a false statement of the implementation of the above B’s name, as described in paragraph (2) from “G” as described in paragraph (1) of the above Act, and exercised the said investigation document as if he/she were aware of the forgery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Written statements of complaints and supplementary statements of complaints prepared B;

1. A report on investigation (to search for a witness);

1. A copy of each letter of implementation and a copy of each agreement;

1. Details of the use of each enterprise card, details of account transactions, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding transaction tax inquiries;

1. Articles 356, 355 (1) (Selection of Imprisonment), 231 (Selection of Punishment) and 234 (Selection of Punishment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting 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. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 25 and 31 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for Orders for Compensation and Declaration of Provisional Execution (Scope of Recommendations)

1. Type 1 (less than 100 million won) of the basic area of embezzlement and breach of trust ( April - 1 year and April);

2. Type 1 (Counterfeiting, altering, etc. of private documents) of private documents: Basic area (six months - two years);

3. On May 10, - June - May 10, - the defendant has no record of punishment, the fact that he/she has committed a crime, the age and family relationship of the defendant, etc. are not well-grounded.

However, in light of the fact that two times of occupational embezzlements have been made, the amount of embezzlement is limited to 33 million won, and the document is forged and held to conceal the crime of embezzlement, the amount of damage is not recovered at all, and the injured party who suffered economic difficulties due to the defendant's crime wishes to punish the defendant's severe punishment, it is inevitable to punish the defendant as ordered.