From March 2011 to January 2015, the Defendant, as the head of the victim E corporation in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, has been engaged in the business of receiving the purchase price for airline tickets from the above company's customers and paying it to the company.

On June 28, 2014, the Defendant received transfer of KRW 1,510,000 from F to the Defendant’s Han Bank Account (H) for the purchase price of airline tickets against G from the above company’s office and used it for the said company for personal purposes, such as shopping expenses, etc. around that time.

From that time until January 14, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by consuming the amount equivalent to KRW 296,854,507 on behalf of the company for the purpose of the company, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, on a total of 100 occasions, as indicated in the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Application of each investigation report (the filing of details of account transactions in the name of a suspect, addition of details of damage, confirmation of identity of a suspect and amount of discount, arrangement of presumed personal use among the details of account transactions in the name of a suspect, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on August 21, 2014 in the list of crimes) and subordinate statutes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 355 (1) (Selection of Imprisonment) of the same Act for the choice of criminal facts;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Type Determination] Crossing Misappropriation, and Type 2 (at least KRW 100 million, but less than KRW 500 million) (the recommended territory and the scope of punishment] basic area: One year to three years;

2. The amount of embezzlement and embezzlement of the sentence is about KRW 300,000,00,000, and it is inevitable to severely punish the defendant as it is not very good in light of the period of crime under the Act on the Punishment of Crimes.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and divided the wrong facts, the defendant considered the first offender in favorable circumstances, and the circumstances after the crime are being committed.