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

The Defendant is an employee of Company B, and a person who is employed as the head of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Management of Officetel from August 201 to July 31, 2012 and was engaged in the collection and disbursement of the above officetel management expenses.

On July 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn KRW 24,841,810 from the management expenses account in the management expenses account in the management of the relevant officetel; and (b) embezzled KRW 40,836,230 on July 31, 2012 by withdrawing KRW 13,94,420 from the management expenses account in the management expenses account; and (c) embezzled KRW 40,836,230 for personal repayment, etc. for the said officetel occupant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint, a detailed statement of entry and departure transactions, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing withdrawals;

1. Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 355 of the same Act (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (a) of the Criminal Code (a person who has been sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment on April 12, 2006 for the same kind of crime and has been sentenced to 2 million won a fine on August 4, 2008, even though he had been sentenced to her on August 4, 2008, he committed the crime of this case, and therefore, he/she should be punished strictly because he/she committed the crime of this case. However, he/she was led to the confession of the crime of this case and his/her depth is divided, and he/she paid 10 million won to the victim out of the amount of embezzlement and paid 10

1. It shall be decided as ordered for the reason under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;