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

The defendant is the representative director of the victim D Co., Ltd. who is engaged in the business of operating and managing the funds of the victim company.

On April 14, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 316 million from E Co., Ltd. (the representative director F) that is a contract for the construction of a new E secondary factory in North Korea located in North Korea, to an enterprise bank account in the name of the victim company, and again transferred it to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the victim company, and then withdrawn KRW 30 million among them and kept in the business, and then deposited KRW 250 million among them to the national bank account in the name of the defendant, on April 15, 2016, and embezzled KRW 200 million for the use of stocks by transferring it to another national bank account in the name of the defendant through another national bank account in the name of the defendant under the name of another national bank account (H).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect by the prosecution against I, J, or K;

1. Each police statement made to F and K;

1. One of the financial investment instruments transaction details, a copy of corporate bank confirmation (the remittance of KRW 316 million), a Saemaul Treasury (the nominal name): D) transaction details; a copy of passbook A; a copy of passbook A; and a transaction details. The crime of embezzlement is established when the intent of illegal acquisition was finally expressed externally. As long as the crime was established by embezzlement of another person's money under the occupational custody with the intent of illegal acquisition, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement asserts that he/she has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, it does not affect the crime of embezzlement already established in light of the above legal principle (Supreme Court Decision 95Do59 delivered on March 14, 1995). In light of the above legal principle, each of the above evidence is examined by the Health Unit, the evidence of the victim, the victim, the L, and the M&A operated in the separate form.