From February 6, 2014, the Defendant has been engaged in the sales and collection of goods of the said company at C’s source point, the victim in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant collected 166,500 won for goods and used 18,000 won among them as business expenses, and used the remainder of 148,500 won for the company as business expenses. At around that time, the Defendant consumed the apartment house deposit from the head of Suwon-si around that time for personal use, such as appropriation of the deposit and cost of living.

In addition, from around that time to June 12, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the total of KRW 49,021,160 by the same method nine times from the Suwon Si through the same method, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Attachment to a detailed statement of withdrawal);

1. The crime of occupational embezzlement, such as this case’s reason for sentencing of Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the choice of imprisonment) on criminal facts and Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the same Act, is a crime in breach of trust with the victim, and the nature of such

Although the defendant has recovered part of the damage by not receiving a monthly salary from the victim, the amount of damage not recovered and the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc. shall be determined as ordered by the order, taking into account the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's age, personality and conduct

However, there is no statutory restraint because it is reasonable to give the defendant an opportunity to recover from damage without detention.