On June 2012, the Defendant, as an authorized intermediary, introduced a commercial building in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gu where D, a corporation, intended to act as a sales agent, recommended investment, and received 88,00,000 won as the price for the offer from the injured party upon delegation of the subscription duty for 107 non-10,000 won of the 1st underground floor of the above commercial building D.

On July 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 40 million out of the subscription price of KRW 107,000 to the Plaintiff Company D by subrogated payment of KRW 40,000,000 to F, who had first subscribed for KRW 107,00,000; and (b) temporarily consumed the remainder of KRW 48,00,000 for the victim, and embezzled it for personal use from around that time to September 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement concerning G in the protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Statement made to C by the police in the protocol; and

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense applicable to each Act or subordinate statute stated in the subscription certificate, deposit confirmation certificate, termination certificate, power of attorney, details of transaction, and the reason for sentencing (or choice of imprisonment) of Article 355 of the selective Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment for the sentencing guidelines / [type] The basic area [the scope of the recommended punishment / [the scope of the recommended punishment] from April to April of one year and four months; and

2. A sentence shall be imposed in light of the fact that there was no agreement with the victim who was sentenced to the sentence, and that there was no substantial portion of the recovery of damage. As to the term of the sentence, there was no record of crime to be taken into account, and there was a confession that the defendant committed a crime, the defendant paid the victim the amount of KRW 10 million out of the amount of damage, and the payment of KRW 10 million out of the amount of damage to the victim as interest shall be taken into account under favorable circumstances in which it appears that the defendant would have paid the victim the amount of KRW 10 million under the pretext of interest, and other circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the defendant’s age