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

From March 31, 2013 to May 23, 2016, the Defendant has been engaged in the management of the funds of the victimized Company as the representative director of the Victim C Co., Ltd. located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. Occupational embezzlement;

A. On February 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around February 19, 2016, at the above damaged company’s office, kept the damaged company’s public funds in the Defendant’s bank account (D) for the purpose of the victimized company; (b) had E, an employee in charge of accounting of the victimized company transfer the said public funds of KRW 13 million to the Defendant’s bank account (F) with the Defendant’s name; and (c) used them for personal purposes, such as living expenses, around that time.

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

B. On February 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 20 million out of the public funds of the damaged company that was under the occupational custody of the Defendant to the new bank account (H) in the name of the land owner G for the purpose of the damaged company; and (b) lent it to another land owner I around that time; and (c) consumed personal use by lending it to another land owner I.

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

(c)

On April 26, 2016, the Defendant received reimbursement of KRW 20 million from J to the said damaged company’s office, and used KRW 10 million for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. around that time when the victimized company received payment from J, and used KRW 10 million for the Defendant’s bank account (F).

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

2. According to the internal procedures of the company causing occupational breach of trust, a resolution of the board of directors is required to pay the living expenses to the students of the private teaching institute operated by the victimized company.

Nevertheless, on April 26, 2016, the Defendant violated the duty to observe the above internal procedures at the office of the above victimized company, and thereby, the victimized company.