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

On January 6, 2014, at the office operated by the Defendant in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, B, and 118, the Defendant was entrusted with the purchase and sale of BMF E in KRW 35 million by the victim D.

The Defendant, around February 8, 2014, sold the said vehicle to F to whom the victim was entrusted to sell and purchase the said vehicle at KRW 36 million and kept the said purchase price for the victim. From February 8, 2014 to February 14, 2014, the Defendant embezzled the said vehicle by arbitrarily consuming it as office operating expenses, such as purchase cost of other vehicles, from the said C office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of details of transactions of vehicle purchase price accounts) and application of statutes of one detailed statement of transactions;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act [the scope of recommending punishment] Embezzlement 1 (100 million won) basic area (the decision of sentencing) / [the decision of sentencing] / failure to recover damage. However, the defendant reflects the crime of this case, seems to make efforts to recover damage, and the defendant is not punished due to property crime, and only two times the criminal records have been imposed by a fine not exceeding one million won are considered.