except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From January 1, 2012 to October 31, 2014, the Defendant stated the facts charged against the victim of a mobile phone selling company with D representative director as the victim by the representative director E, but it is evident that the victim is a corporation E, when considering the facts charged itself.

In light of the entire process of the argument in this case, it is difficult to recognize this part as it is without changing the indictment and to regard it as a case where there is a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense.

In the position of the branch office of the apartment store, the mobile phone sales and inventory management, the management of mobile phone sales proceeds and subsidies, the customer fee collection management, and the mid-term mobile phone management.

1. Around January 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around January 24, 2012, the Defendant kept KRW 400,000 of the subsidy to be paid to the customer at the time of mobile phone sales in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (F) in custody for the victim; (b) however, even though there was no reason to pay the telecommunications subsidy to the relative job offering G, he deposited the amount of KRW 4 million into the G account as if he was paid the telecommunications subsidy; and (c) again, he received it from the national bank account in the name of the

The Defendant, including that, from January 24, 2012 to October 4, 2014, received a total of KRW 21,482,030 on a total of 101 occasions from around 24, 201 to the Defendant’s account, and embezzled by arbitrarily using the Defendant’s account, as indicated in attached Table 1, and, from February 18, 2013 to July 30, 2013, the Defendant embezzled total of KRW 11,53,756 on a total of 200 occasions, as indicated in attached Table 2, without recording in the daily table of crimes.

2. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant in occupational breach of trust was a subsidy even if there was no subsidy to be paid to J in relation to mobile phone sales in the victim Esandong store located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.