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.

From December 2, 2014 to July 31, 2015, the Defendant carried on the fish farm business in a manner that the victim and the defendant distribute profits generated from the operation of the fish farm to the fish farm in D located in the fish farm with the victim F, while operating the fish farm in D located in the fish farm at the fish farm.

On July 31, 2015, the Defendant sold 340,000 US dollars to G from the instant fish farm, and embezzled 50 million won by having G, who was in mind to use the sales proceeds for the purpose of personal debt repayment to G with the victim, while settling accounts with the victim and distributing it. However, the Defendant embezzled 50 million won by having G transfer the sales proceeds to H account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to two Chapters 2 and 2 of the tax invoice, data borrowed by the complainants, and a statement of H account transactions;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Types of Determination] Embezzlement Type 1 (less than 100 million won): The elements for mitigation of punishment [person who is subject to special sentencing] : The scope of mitigation of punishment [the scope of recommendation] [the scope of punishment] 1 month to October [the decision of sentence] 1 month to 10 months [the defendant makes a confession and reflects, the defendant made a smooth agreement with the victim, and there are no records of the suspension of execution or more.