However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant has been engaged in sales, fund management, etc. in the “E” clothes store operated by the victim D with the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C commercial building No. 122.

On February 24, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 190,000 from customers in the above clothing store from customers and embezzled the money for personal use around that time.

In addition, from that to July 20, 2016, the Defendant embezzled total of KRW 58,378,00,000, which was kept in business for the victim by means of the aforementioned method, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, for personal purposes, from that to that to July 20, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made in the police statement protocol with D;

1. Application of each Act or subordinate statute of a statement of account transactions, such as a certificate, etc. (not more than 81 pages of evidence records);

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, inclusive, with respect to the relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., favorable circumstances deemed as the following grounds for sentencing):

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of the recommended punishment for the sentencing guidelines / [type] Embezzlement / Breach of Trust, and the basic area of Type 1 (less than KRW 100,00) / [the scope of the recommended punishment] / Non-guilty of the punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] from January to October;

2. As long as the Defendant had been employed as an employee in the clothing store operated by the victim, the sentence period or frequency of the crime was committed, under the unfavorable circumstances that are disadvantageous to the nature of the crime because of the considerable number of times of the crime, the Defendant is the primary offender, and the Defendant is making a confession of the crime, and the Defendant fully pays the amount of embezzlement and fully reached an agreement with the victim, taking into account the favorable circumstances, and taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive for the crime, and conditions after the crime.