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

The defendant is a closing member of a meeting among the victims D who jointly set up C.

Around December 28, 1999, the Defendant: (a) entered into a sales contract with H to a place where it is difficult to know of the place on April 8, 2015; (b) entered into a sales contract with H to sell the said land at a price of KRW 390 million for the said land at a place where it is difficult to know of the place around December 28, 2015; and (c) completed a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant and G and kept the said land for the victim on behalf of the Defendant and G; and (d) embezzled the said land by completing the registration of transfer of ownership to H around April 28, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to H and G;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (Evidence No. 12);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to the part favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The sentencing guidelines [the range of recommended punishment] Class 2 (the range of punishment shall be between 10 million won and 500 million won) and the mitigation area (six months to 2 years) (the person who is specially mitigated) is not subject to punishment;

2. Based on the above sentencing criteria, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in full view of the following factors, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, and motive of crime:

A favorable circumstances: The confession and reflects in depth, the first offender who has no previous record, the elderly, the fact that the damage seems to have been significantly restored for a long time, and the fact that the damaged person does not want to be punished by the defendant.

(i) Unfavorable circumstances: The amount of embezzlement is not certain, etc.