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

The defendant is the head of the finance division of the victim C church in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 and has been engaged in the affairs of church accounting and fund management.

The Defendant, at the above church around August 31, 201, transferred KRW 250,00,000 to a bank account (E) in the name of the victim church and the school juristic person as the amount of the conciliation agreement on civil litigation between the victim church and the school juristic person, and voluntarily released KRW 10,000,000 on February 29, 201, around April 2012, 200, around 2000, around 2000, around 2000, and around 20,000, around May 21, 2012, around 20,000, around 20,000, around June 19, 2012, and then voluntarily released KRW 20,000,000 on the pretext of personal consumption, including the amount of KRW 15,00,000,000 on June 19, 2012, 009.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property in his occupational custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police interrogation protocol of the suspect suspect F by the defendant against the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written complaint, letter of authentication, protocol of compromise, copy of passbook, statement of inquiry about details of entry and withdrawal, investigation report (Submission of additional data by the complainant), arrangement of details, change of name, application for bank transaction, identification number, proxy certificate, and copy of identification card;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. In light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of this case is not good and the amount of damage cannot be deemed to be less.

It is against the defendant's wrong recognition that more than 60% of the amount of damage has been repaid and the additional repayment has been made, and the defendant has been dedicated for the victim as well as the victim.