From June 1, 2009 to July 1, 2016, the Defendant was engaged in the business of consulting and entering into a contract with the PS and PS in C, a corporation consulting for trading as a trading business, and engaged in consulting and entering into a contract with PS and PS.

On January 10, 2015, the Defendant would give a discount when paying the price to E in a lump sum at the C office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D from among counseling related to marriage.

“Around January 10, 2015 to August 1, 2016, after receiving KRW 900,000 from the above E, the said money was paid to the company without entering the said money into the company system, and was consumed by living expenses, etc. around that time, etc., and then embezzled KRW 159,969,80 from the customer 77 to the Defendant’s personal account or received the payment in cash from the company in order to deposit the said money, as described in the attached crime list between January 10, 2015 to August 1, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the F;

1. A complaint and accompanying materials;

1. Details of each banking transaction by the accused;

1. Analysis of accounts;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of crowdfunding agreement;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of recommending punishment] Type 2 (at least 100 million won but less than 500 million won) basic areas (at least 8 months to 3 years): No increase in one step (special sentencing factors) by adding together the same types of competition;

2. The Defendant, who has rendered a sentence, recognized and reflected the facts charged.

There is no specific history of punishment.

On the other hand, the victim did not receive repayment only to the extent of 25 million won and complained of the damage (the defendant is after the conclusion of the pleadings).