However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 1, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the property that was separated from the possession of the victim by failing to take the procedure necessary for return, such as returning it to the victim or filing a report to the police, even though he/she acquired one cell phone equivalent to KRW 900,000 at the market price that is far away from the road due to the loss of the victim’s name or the loss of the victim’s name, on the street, at around 23:00, the Defendant embezzled the property that was separated from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the list of seized articles and photographs;

1. Relevant Article 360 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 360 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies is that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 4 months by the court on January 30, 2018 (the same day as the day this decision was rendered) and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on January 30, 2018. As for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the above case should be tried and sentenced separately as prescribed by the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies, and the case should be tried and sentenced separately, taking into account the circumstances that the Defendant did not combine with the above case, and except for the case, the sentence is determined like the order, taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing such as the Defendant