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

From August 7, 199 to January 26, 2012, the Defendant engaged in the duty of paying insurance proceeds to those who suffered damage from taxi accidents from the taxi as C compensation and employees of the mutual aid association under the Victim B (hereinafter “victim’s Association”) (hereinafter “victim’s Association”).

1. On March 2, 2011, while the Defendant kept public funds for the payment of insurance money at the office of the victim cooperative C located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on behalf of the victim cooperative, the traffic accident victim E was distributed to himself/herself, despite the fact that the victim of the traffic accident did not have any agreement between the victim and the perpetrator, the Defendant: (a) prepared a written agreement thereon; (b) submitted it to the account team of the victim cooperative; and (c) entered the account in the name of F, the Defendant’s seat of the victim into the account of the victim cooperative in the name of the above F in the name of agreement; and (d) made the deposit from the account of the victim cooperative to the account of the victim of the traffic accident;

In addition, from around that time to November 9, 201, the Defendant deposited a total of 62,930,000 won into the Defendant’s account in the name of his seat, as shown in the attached Table 1, between around that time and around that time, and consumed it for personal purposes.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim union.

2. On July 29, 2010, the Defendant kept public funds for the payment of insurance proceeds at a place specified in paragraph (1) on behalf of the victim association, and the traffic accident victim was distributed to G to himself/herself, notwithstanding the fact that there was no agreement between the victim of the traffic accident and the perpetrator, the Defendant prepared a written agreement to this effect and submitted it to the victim association accounting team, and sought KRW 1.2 million from the account of the victim association under the pretext of agreement by inputting the same contents into the computer system of the victim association, and then paid only KRW 50,000 with the above G.