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

On December 28, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 16,375,160 from an employee under the name of the victim B corporation, to pay for the material cost to the Plaintiff, who participated in the construction work of the construction work of the inner super-city C Apartment, on behalf of the victim, and to receive KRW 16,375,160 from the Jbank account in the name of the Defendant.

The Defendant, who was kept in custody for the victim, has arbitrarily consumed the same for personal purposes, such as wages or living expenses, for others who are not the above father at the place of influence, and embezzled.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of K in the police statement against the defendant;

1. The police statement of K;

1. A written statement on the disposition of overdue wages;

1. Written complaint;

1. Investigation report (Submission of a certificate of confirmation of details of transactions and transfer details by the complainant);

1. Each investigation report (Reference E, H, D, and M telephone communications);

1. Report on investigation (the result of execution of a warrant of seizure, search and inspection);

1. A standard form subcontract agreement of the construction business;

1. Proxy letter of delegation to receive each wage;

1. A detailed statement of embezzlement;

1. A certificate of transaction;

1. Inquiry into the details of transfer, replies related to the provision of financial transaction information, statements of transactions of new free savings, and customer information inquiry table;

1. Application of statutes governing certified transcript of corporate register;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant, while working as the head of the Working Group at the construction site of the victimized company, embezzled the employees’ wages recruited by himself and received wages from the victimized company at the construction site without paying them to the employees. In light of the circumstances and methods of the crime, the nature of the crime is inferior.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant did not repay most of the damages until the closing date of the instant argument, it is difficult to view that the illegality of the instant crime was mitigated.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case.