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

From around 2013, the defendant has been engaged in the financial and accounting affairs of the above company as the former director of the victim C corporation in the East Sea.

On May 20, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 16250,000 from D, a director, to pay in cash to E, a business partner, and kept in custody on behalf of the victim company. On May 20, 2018, the Defendant arbitrarily paid KRW 15,00,000 out of the above KRW 16.25 million to F in order to repay borrowed money related to fishery product processing plant construction at the above C office, and embezzled the remainder by arbitrarily using it as food, etc. in the vicinity of the East Sea at that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D (including G statements);

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. A report on investigation (a list of evidence Nos 21);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on tax invoices, etc., written confirmation, full certificate of registered matters, written estimates, and receipts;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. The Defendant, who received KRW 16250,00 from D to pay the household price of the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) for the reason of conviction under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, used most of the Defendant’s business custody for the victim Co., Ltd. for the payment of obligations to F. The Defendant’s obligation to F with respect to F is not the victim company but the Defendant’s private individual, can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition, and the Defendant’s use of the money borrowed from F for the construction cost, etc. cannot be viewed differently.

The reason for sentencing is that the sentence of imprisonment is not recovered due to the crime of this case, and the amount of damage is not so much, and the victim company seems to be close to the single defendant company.