However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. From May 5, 2014, the Defendant engaged in delivery and collection of money as an employee of the “Dcafeteria” operated by the victim C, the victim C, who was in net City B, from May 5, 2014.

On June 16, 2014, the Defendant, at the above D cafeteria on June 21, 2014, embezzled KRW 254,50,00 of the food cost that the Defendant delivered and received on the same day on the same day on his/her business, while he/she kept in custody for the victim on his/her own, used it for gambling funds, etc.

2. At the time and time set forth in Paragraph 1, the Defendant thefted with a sub-lease of KRW 248,500, in cash, which was on the cafeteria’s book, owned by the said victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Articles 356, 355(1) and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Consideration of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is divided, that the degree of damage is relatively insignificant, and that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, etc.