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

The Defendant was in charge of the general affairs of the victim D shop prosperity in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and managed the funds.

From January 201 to July 2015, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim by arbitrarily consuming KRW 30,047,390 as the Defendant’s living cost, credit card payment, etc. while depositing the electric charges, water charges, management expenses, and the proceeds of heavy meter rents collected from the residents of the D commercial building into the national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A copy of a bankbook, account book, investigation report (report attached to suspect data), and application of statutes on the detailed statement of management expenses on September 201, and June 2014;

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (generally, choice of imprisonment);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. Type 1 (less than 100 million won) of the basic area of punishment subject to recommendation;

2. As of the reason for sentencing, 8.5 million won has been paid up to the day of sentencing, and it is possible to repay in installments in the future, the primary offender, and the total amount of embezzlement, etc. shall be considered.