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

From February 23, 2008 to October 2012, the Defendant has been engaged in the affairs of delivery of goods, customer management and collection, purchase of materials and storage management from November 2008 to October 2012 as employees of the victim company C (Representative D; hereinafter referred to as the “victim company”) that is operated by the victim C (Representative D; hereinafter referred to as the “victim company”).

On November 22, 2008, the Defendant collected KRW 1.3 million from a customer with no knowledge of the trade name, and operated computerized data for the victim company, and then arbitrarily consumed the amount of money to the victim company as if it had been collected, and then used it as living expenses around that time.

In addition, from around October 13, 2012 to around October 13, 2012, the Defendant collected a sum of KRW 184 million from each business partner over 139 times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and stored for the sake of the victim company, the Defendant fabricated computerized data and processed it as if the victim company received money, and arbitrarily consumed it as living expenses, etc. around that time.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of each computerized slips (2010, 2011, and 2012), each cash book (2010, 2011, and 2012), liquidity trading protocol, receipts, etc. for wage and salary income, register, copy of the register, and Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to the accusation;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing)

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment of the Defendant in that the Defendant’s embezzlement for sentencing is not limited, and the Defendant’s considerable damage to the victim company for a long time and most of the damage recovery are not made.

However, the defendant has been punished so far.