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

From April 30, 2010 to August 1, 2013, the Defendant, as a general secretary of the victim C Apartment Council, managed the management expenses, long-term repair and maintenance expenses paid by the occupants of apartments, and engaged in monetary management affairs, such as tax, public charges, calculation and payment.

Around July 8, 2011, at the apartment management office located in the apartment house (C Apartment) around July 8, 2011, the Defendant charged 72 public prosecutors as shown in the attached list of crimes from around 75 times to August 1, 2013, in light of the contents of the attached list of crimes, it is evident that the Defendant is 72 clerical error in the attached list of crimes, in view of the following: (a) the management expenses, etc., for the victim, were deposited in the agricultural cooperative account (Account Number: D) and the credit cooperative account (Account Number): the cost of long-term repair and maintenance expenses deposited in E; and (b) transferred KRW 2,400,000 from the above agricultural cooperative account to F in order to pay personal debts for the victim.

The sum of KRW 56,941,469 from the above Nonghyup and the Credit Union Account was embezzled by voluntarily transferring to the Defendant’s personal debt repayment, loans to loan companies and loan companies, credit card payments, payment of telecommunications fees, and payment of milk.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the account number of a new cooperative passbook and the account number of agricultural cooperatives;

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 instant crime on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is a case where the Defendant embezzled money worth KRW 50 million in total while having custody of the victim’s property, and is unfavorable under the circumstances where the Defendant embezzled money, such as where the amount of the money embezzled by the Defendant is not much, the Defendant’s perception of the instant crime is against the Defendant’s mistake and agreed with the victim, and the Defendant has agreed with the victim.