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

On September 13, 2013, the Defendant agreed to purchase part of E in the official city with D and paid D KRW 30 million to the owner of the said real estate as the down payment. Since the Defendant decided to destroy the said agreement with D, it received a request from D to return the above KRW 30 million and penalty KRW 10 million in total, and KRW 40 million and KRW 40 million to D.

On the same day, the Defendant, while receiving the above KRW 40 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of Defendant F, was kept for the victim, he embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming it for personal use around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to attach data submitted by a suspect and report on confirmation of statements);

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 355 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

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

1. Taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, such as recovery of damage (a return of 10 million won to a victim, a deposit of 16 million won after repayment to a victim who can be seen as a substantial victim) that has no specific criminal record, such as the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., one time of a fine, etc. (a return of 10 million won to a victim, and a deposit of 16 million won after repayment to a victim), reflectivity, motive and circumstance