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

From March 2013 to October 2015, the Defendant, as a staff member of the victim corporation HFD, from around March 2013 to around October 2015, was engaged in the sales and collection of goods of the victimized company at the department store B store in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

In early 2015, the Defendant sold the four books of Not North Korea, which are owned by the victimized Company, to those who are not aware of the names of customers at the above store, and ordered them to receive approximately KRW 3,700,000 in cash from the proceeds thereof, and used them for personal purposes, such as repayment of debts, at the daily center in Seoul Metropolitan City around that time.

The Defendant, including that, from the above date to September 12, 2015, collected approximately KRW 19,023,00 in total on three occasions in the same way as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and used it for personal purposes, such as repayment of debt, at the Japanese Won in Seoul Metropolitan City around that time.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victimized company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A certificate;

1. A detailed statement of each order;

1. A purchase contract;

1. Application of each receipt statute;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Four months to one year and four months from the scope of imprisonment for the recommendation and sentence on the sentencing criteria (the basic area of embezzlement and breach of trust)

2. Although the Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, committed the instant crime without any trust relationship with the victim on duty, did not fully repay the amount of damage, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the circumstances in which the economic difficulty is very difficult, and recognized the mistake at present, and the Defendant recognized the error.