The Defendant had been working for the victim Daejeon from October 6, 2008 to October 1, 201 as an employee of the victim corporation at the B sales store of the farming association corporation and has been engaged in the business of selling goods and managing sales proceeds.

On March 31, 2009, while the Defendant kept the sales price of the above sales store for the victim corporation at the above sales store located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, for the victim corporation, the Defendant made a false electronic data processing as if he did not deposit 669,090 won of the sales price of the victim corporation into the account of the victim corporation, and then embezzled the above sales price by using the Defendant’s mother’s living expenses, etc. at will, and used the above sales price at will from around that time to July 27, 2011, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes, used 42,702,876 won in total for the above company for 30 times in mind.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A complaint;

1. Spatial chart of embezzlement details, electronic data processing records of embezzlement evidentiary materials, copies of bankbooks, details of transfer processing results, and copies of process certificates;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in addition to submission of supplementary materials for accusation by an agent of a complainant for an agricultural incorporated association for filing a complaint);

1. In light of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, comprehensively, the Defendant, who does not have any previous criminal record of the grounds for sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor, led to the confession and reflection of the offense, and the fact that certain amount of damage has been repaid is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant embezzled the amount of damage over a relatively long-term period, the damage has not been fully recovered, and there is no agreement with the victim, it is inevitable to sentence the corresponding sentence.

Punishment shall be imposed in consideration of the sentencing grounds prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, sex, family environment, etc. of the accused.