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.

On June 1, 2014, the Defendant, as a representative director of the company, was to receive investment from D that became aware of through a branch director, and established F Co., Ltd. on October 1, 2014, the Defendant, as a representative director of the company, took overall charge of all business affairs, such as fund management.

1. The Defendant, on October 14, 2014, deposited 200 million won in the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the victim corporation and embezzled 100 million won from the said corporate account on October 21, 2014 and granted D a loan borrowed to D as repayment of KRW 100 million on the same day.

2. Around October 27, 2014, the Defendant embezzled by transferring KRW 15 million from the corporate account to the new cooperation account in the name of G wife H from the said corporate account under the pretext of giving the Defendant’s East G with compensation for continuing to help the Defendant’s work, and purchasing the vehicles of G.

3. On January 15, 2015, the Defendant embezzled by transferring 1310,000 won from the said corporate account to the national bank account under the name of the lessor, under the pretext of paying a monthly rent of the Defendant’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police statements made to D or J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (K Interview for Witnesses);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 355 (1) and 355 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The defendant's assertion of Defendant 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act loaned 100 million won to the corporate fund in response to D's request, which is alleged to be not guilty since it was disposed of as a provisional payment. However, the defendant disposed of the above money.

There is no evidence to see, and according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant can voluntarily withdraw the corporate funds of the victim company and sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant gave it to D, so the above assertion by the defendant is accepted.