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

The defendant is a person who has been in charge of the business of supplying frozen foods, etc. to the customer in Daejeon Dong-gu D operated by the victim C, and collecting the transaction fees.

On April 10, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 3,00,000,000,000 for transaction in F E, which was kept for the victim, by voluntarily consuming the amount for personal debt, and was kept for the victim. From September 11, 2013 to April 17, 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 35,940,30,00 in total, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A detailed statement of account transactions (for the purposes of Articles 41 through 49 of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each commitment;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (generally, selection of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommending punishment] Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act / [the scope of recommending punishment / [the scope of recommending punishment / [4 months to 100 million won] / [the person subject to special sentencing] of the basic area (4 months to 100 million won] / [the decision of sentencing] is not agreed upon with the victim. However, the defendant's repayment of part of the amount of damage to the defendant's account transfer or the defendant's wages, the defendant's repayment of part of the amount of damage in the manner appropriated from some of his/her account transfer or the defendant's wages is contrary to the defendant.