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

The Defendant is an employee of the victim C Co., Ltd. from August 2018 to May 25, 2019, and served as the chief of telecommunications office at the construction site of Goyangyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

1. On October 2018, the defrauded: (a) the Defendant, even though having not provided labor at the above site, did not appear to have prepared documents as if he provided labor; and (b) had been paid the E share of labor cost from the victim.

On October 25, 2018, the Defendant: (a) prepared a schedule of daily labor expenses as if E had worked for day duty at the construction site in September 2018; (b) presented to an employee of the victim under the name of the victim, and (c) received KRW 1,350,00 from the victim in the name of E as daily labor expenses; and (c) received KRW 10,355,450 in total six times from around that day to February 25, 2019, under the following name as indicated in the list of crimes:

The Defendant acquired property by deceiving the victim on November 26, 2018, December 24, 2018, 2018, in the corporate bank account (G) account (F) in C, a corporate bank account (G), Co., Ltd., Ltd. on October 25, 2018. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20023, Nov. 24, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 23048, Dec. 24, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 23047, Jan. 29, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 2563, Oct. 463, 950; Presidential Decree No. 17000, Jun. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 23555, Feb. 25, 2019; Presidential Decree No. 23554, Oct. 35, 2015>

2. Around June 2019, the Defendant, at the construction site, has been in custody of the early support team and the early support team equivalent to the total market price of KRW 8,939,700 owned by the victim and the early support team. When the victim was found to have been able to withdraw from the above site, the Defendant sold the above support team and the team to the unsatisfy manager at a price equivalent to KRW 2 million and used the price at his/her own discretion.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim who was on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant C.