When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From May 27, 1997 to July 2016, the Defendant has served as the representative of the victim Co., Ltd. D and has been engaged in gas sale and collection business.

1. The Defendant, from January 1, 2007, deposited gas proceeds in cash from trading companies Fda, G, etc. located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, and used 5,99,750 won on April 30, 2008, and 436,910 won on August 27, 2008, and 6,436,66,660 won in total to the account of the victim company’s funds management, but used them for personal purposes such as living expenses.

2. From January 2007, the Defendant: (a) from around 1, 2007 to around 10,000 won, around 2007, around 2007, around 407,000 won; (b) around 449,000 won on April 2007, around 2007; (c) around 1,40,970 won; (d) around 89,215 won on August 2007; (d) around 300,00 won on September 207; and (e) around 2,313,60 won on February 208; and (e) deposited into an account for personal consumption of the victim, including KRW 2,176,730 on July 2, 2008; and (e) deposit funds for personal consumption of the victim; and (e) deposit KRW 89,215,700 on July 28, 2008.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim company that was under custody in the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the defendant (including the part concerning H replacement) and the documents attached thereto;

1. Application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the letter of authentication, each transaction books in 2007, each transaction books in 2008, each of the transaction books in 2008

1. Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensively including the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment for a crime, [in the event that several acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the benefit and protection of the law from such damage are the same, each of such acts shall be punished by a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5341, Aug. 22, 2003).