From March 2006 to March 5, 2012, the Defendant served as accounting books at D Co., Ltd. in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the first floor, and was in charge of business customer receipts, employee pay management, and remittance of payments.

D, while operating the representative director E, from January 4, 2010, F, who had been working as the representative director, had been working as E, and the Defendant had been willing to withdraw and consume the money from the customer’s account continuously remitted to the above account in cash on the basis that, even after F’s representative director was employed, the account in the former name was not terminated.

On April 27, 2010, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 1,000,000 from the account (Account Number: National Bank G) in cash and embezzled it by voluntarily consuming the Defendant’s living expenses, etc. around that time.

From that time to February 27, 2012, the Defendant embezzled total sum of KRW 66,094,300 owned by the Victim D Co., Ltd., a total of 83 times, as indicated in the crime list, by withdrawing in cash or transferring it to the Defendant’s account during the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Each specification of transactions;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. The reason [the scope of recommending punishment] for sentencing of Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (comprehensively, the choice of imprisonment) [the scope of recommending punishment] is the basic area ( April to January 1) [the person who is specially punished] [the decision of sentencing] [the sentencing criteria for the defendant's crime of this case are as above.

In this context, the defendant's embezzlement of 66 million won, excluding 20 million won, is not recovered, and the victim wanted to punish the defendant's severe punishment, and the circumstances of embezzlement are not good.