The defendant is a person who has been engaged in the delivery and collection of food materials in Asan City C Co., Ltd.

Around January 4, 2014, the Defendant embezzled KRW 30,63,302,00 in total by means of the foregoing 1111 times, as described in the separate sheet of crime, from around September 12, 2014, when he/she was in custody for the company after collecting KRW 156,850 as D food materials, and consumed them for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to factual confirmations, identification of performance, and copies of transaction statements;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Overallly, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) in relation to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Determination of types] Embezzlement and breach of trust: Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (Determination of the recommended field] basic area, period of four months to one year and four months;

2. Determination of sentence: The amount embezzled by the Defendant over the eight-month period was exceeded KRW 30 million, but no damage was restored.

In the past, the victims used two times when the defendant committed the same crimes under several laws, but it was stated that the victim again committed the crime and filed the complaint.

The defendant requested the continuation of the date for agreement with the victim during the public trial and did not appear several times, and thereafter, did not comply with the last sentence of this Article.

After filing a complaint, there is no contact between the defendant and the defendant in relation to the agreement or repayment, and the victim is punished for the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to punishment.

Provided, That the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the fact that the defendant has been punished twice by a fine for other types of crimes in the past.