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

On November 5, 2008, the Defendant, along with the victim F, who acquired shares in the EH clubs in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment Complex from Dong C, was in charge of the duties such as the collection of membership fees.

On November 24, 2008, the Defendant embezzled 11,597,000 won in total for 74 times from around the above time to July 5, 201, as described in the separate crime list, while receiving KRW 220,00 from G members annual membership fees from G members and being kept in custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and H;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the F statement section);

1. F statement in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer concerning F accompanied by the investigation report (Attachment to the protocol related to statement C for reference) (including the C statement part);

1. Each written opinion and each written confirmation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the membership management program, health club operation agreement, free transfer contract, certificate (including receipts), branch contract, list of students, books, copies of books, settlement documents, investigation reports (including details of passbook transactions) and statutes attached to the judgment attached to the investigation report (F judgment);

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with labor, and the applicable Articles of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the following) ;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant has been repeatedly denying the crime, but the amount of embezzlement is not significant, and the Defendant paid a sum of approximately KRW 30 million from December 2008 to April 2010 to the victim under the pretext of settlement of accounts, while the share ratio between the Defendant and the victim was the same, but the actual investment ratio was higher.