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.

From November 2009 to January 201, 2015, the Defendant was in charge of accounting and accounting while serving as a general director at the Hague for the operation of the victim E located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D2, and during the same period at the Hague for the operation of the victim located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, as a general director.

From November 2009, the Defendant deposited the above hedges, etc. into the victim E’s national bank account, one bank account, and two corporate bank accounts under the name of G, and transferred, without permission, KRW 26,801,122 in total over 57 times from March 5, 2010 to April 10, 2013, as indicated in the list of crimes, when the Defendant was in business custody for the victim. The “F” on October 1, 2010, when the Defendant was in business custody, with the intent to consume the said national bank account for personal use, and without permission, transferred KRW 1,00,000 deposited into the said national bank account by means of Internet banking, to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the complaint filed by E and G;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational embezzlement and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing as follows);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order has repeatedly embezzled a small amount of money for a considerable period of time on the grounds that the defendant is in charge of funding and accounting at the victim’s workplace, and has committed such an amount as has not yet been written for the amount of 26 million won, and the defendant’s responsibility is not minor;

However, there is no other history of punishment in addition to the punishment of a fine for a minor crime through two times in the past.

In addition, the defendant is against the victim, even though he recognizes the fact of crime.