Since November 2, 2011, the defendant works as the head of the victim C corporation in Gangnam-gu Seoul as the victim C corporation in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and has overall control over the management and sales of the company's stock and sales, accounting and tax affairs.

On January 1, 2018, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred KRW 2,00,000,000 to the F Bank account (H) in the name of the victim in the name of the F Bank account (G) that was kept in custody for the victim company in the above E office in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, to the F Bank account in the name of the Defendant, and used it for gambling, and used it for personal purposes, such as gambling, on a total of 45 occasions from August 1, 2019 to August 1, 2019.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to I and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as crime sight lists, details of transactions, etc. (No. 6);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act for the relevant crime;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Three to thirty years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (a decision of type) [the scope of the recommended punishment] the embezzlement and breach of trust (type 3], the amount of at least 500 million won, the amount of less than 5 billion won [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the scope of the recommended punishment and the amount of recommendation], the basic area of imprisonment and 2 to 5 years [the scope of the recommended punishment modified by the applicable sentencing guidelines], the imprisonment and 3 to 5 years (the minimum of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines are inconsistent with the statutory minimum of the applicable sentencing range, so the minimum of the applicable sentencing range in law is inconsistent with the applicable sentencing range).

3. The crime of this case by which the defendant was sentenced is used for personal purposes, such as gambling funds, etc. for the victim company's funds that the defendant kept in office, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the scale of the damage, the period of the crime, etc.