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

From May 1, 1998 to February 8, 2013, the Defendant worked as an employee of Victim D Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., operated by Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Busan, and engaged in the production, purchase, sale, and collection of products of the victimized company.

The Defendant received goods from a material supplier, reported to the damaged company on a quantity less than the actual quantity, and caused the victimized company to pay the price of the goods equivalent to the quantity of the goods so recovered, and then transferred the price of the materials from the trader to the account E in its agricultural cooperative account, or arbitrarily supplied the goods produced by the victimized company to the trader in the transaction, and received the price of the goods from the victimized company to the above account and received them for personal use without depositing the price of the goods into the victimized company.

On June 30, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from F to the operator of a trader of a victimized company by the above method and used it for personal purposes while in business custody.

The Defendant, as such, embezzled money owned by the victimized company during the course of business and embezzled totaling KRW 134,652,680 from around that time to November 14, 2012 by means of the following methods: (a) received a remittance of total amount of KRW 47 business partners from totaling KRW 134,652,680 in accordance with the attached list of crimes; and (b) embezzled the money in mind

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement C to the Act

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 of the suspended execution (the suspension of execution on condition of the implementation of the community service order in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant embezzled large corporate funds for a considerable period of time in the trust relationship; (b) the victim does not want the punishment against the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim; and (c) the Defendant reflects the wrongness of the Defendant, etc.