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

From March 2013, the Defendant has been engaged in the collection and accounting work of the E-Research Institute's office operated by the victim D, who had been located in Goyang-dong Office C building 508 in Goyang-gu, Busan-si.

On April 17, 2013, the Defendant voluntarily consumed the amount of KRW 51,958,000 (except for No. 11,12, 300,000,000) in total by the following methods until December 16, 2013, in total 28 times, as shown in the list of crimes (except for No. 11,12, as shown in the third trial record) in the list of crimes, as shown in the list of crimes (except for 51,958,00 won in total of KRW 3,00,00,000 in total of 3,00,000) in the name of the Defendant for the victim by collecting tuition fees, real estate auction money, etc. from the students of the Japanese Industrial Complex Office of the above E-Research Institute.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the accused (including replacement of the accused);

1. A list of transactions by account;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of account transactions (No. 8 No. 1)

1. According to the records, even in the case of the No. 27 of the crime sight table of Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Code of the pertinent law as to the crime, the use of the crime is specified. Thus, the crime of embezzlement is established.

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation]: In the mitigated area (100 million won) (1 to 10 months): in a case where the risk of damage has not been greatly realized for a long period of time, [decision of sentence] the fact that the crime of this case was committed for a limited period of time and the amount of damage was not significant, but the damage was incurred to the victim, such as the circumstance where the victim operated his business using the defendant's account, which is merely an employee, and etc.