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

From around 2007 to February 2, 2017, the Defendant, as the head of the village and the head of the general affairs of the village of literature-si C, has been engaged in the management of the village development fund owned by residents and outside persons of the above village, while keeping the funds, compensation, etc. in the accounts of agricultural cooperatives under the name of the head of the previous village, which is the head of the village.

On March 22, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the Village Development Fund worth KRW 97 million in total 73 times from January 3, 2011 to December 14, 2016, by consuming KRW 10 million from the United Nations to the above account as the village development fund, and by consuming KRW 5 million for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. around that time, the Defendant embezzled the Village Development Fund that is worth KRW 97 million in total for 73 times from January 3, 201 to December 14, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of passbook transactions, village fund account books, and settlement statement;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the type of punishment] shall be limited to the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the factors of mitigation of special sentencing]: Where significant damage has been restored [the scope of the recommended punishment], the area of mitigation of the punishment by imprisonment with labor for not less than one month but not more

2. Determination of sentence is not good for the crime of this case. However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized and reflected the crime, and that the defendant recovered approximately KRW 92 million, which is most of the amount of embezzlement, the defendant recovered, the amount of embezzlement, etc., the defendant has no record of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence or more, and there is no record of the same kind of crime.