except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 2, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment was finalized on January 12, 2018.

From July 2012 to November 2015, the Defendant served as the head of the headquarters of the Korean branch of a company mediating study abroad in Australia, from around July 2012 to around November 2015, and has been engaged in the duties to arrange the study abroad of students who want to study abroad, and to transfer the study funds from students to a designated bank in a foreign university, college, institution studying, etc.

On January 25, 2013, the Defendant, at the office located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding D, transferred KRW 13,113,700 from the victim E to the family F School for the purpose of studying expenses and overseas medical insurance premiums to the Defendant’s business account under the name of the Defendant, and arbitrarily used the company’s operating expenses and other students’ studying expenses for the victim E. From that time to August 5, 2013, the Defendant embezzled KRW 62,365,758 of the victims’ property by arbitrarily using them for the purpose of studying expenses, such as the payment of school expenses, etc. by other students or the Defendant’s credit card payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A complaint;

1. Defendant’s e-mail reported on August 6, 2013 on August 6, 2013

1. Application of the e-mail statutes dated July 16, 2014 to Defendant 1

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasoning for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that each of the crimes in this case is concurrent crimes, but the actual victim is B, so the judgment of actual victim is B.