However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, from January 2006 to December 201, 2012, operated D’s business offices operated by the victim B, engaged in cargo collection, delivery, and transportation fee collection, and agreed to pay to the victim the amount excluding the fee to be borne by the Defendant among the clients when receiving the transportation fee from the clients.

Around May 2011, the Defendant embezzled KRW 691,657, excluding the Defendant’s share, etc., as well as embezzlement of KRW 43,453,062 by arbitrarily using the same method between the period from November 30, 201 to November 30, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on content certification, the head of the transaction office (information on input of programs related to delivery of door-to-door distribution), and facsimile data in contract;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The sentence shall be determined as per the disposition, in consideration of the following: (a) there is no previous conviction for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) there is a smooth agreement with the victim; (c) the customer would have committed the instant crime as a result of default or delayed payment; and (d) the planned and intentional embezzlement of the amount does not appear to have been made; and (e) the confession of the instant crime and reflection