except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From April 2004 to April 10, 2013, the Defendant served as the head of the business department of the Sinyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dispute Resolution D, and was engaged in the business affairs such as receiving orders from the victim company and receiving orders for construction costs.

On January 27, 2011, the Defendant received 1.5 million won of the cost of urban gas construction, which he contracted to the victim company, from E, as a passbook with a national bank in the name of the Defendant, and used it for personal purposes such as living expenses, etc. around that time.

From September 2006 to March 14, 2013, the Defendant spent a total of KRW 150,118,500 by the same method 96 times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Each complaint;

1. Application of each letter (A), G, written confirmation of performance, written confirmation, certified copy of each construction cost, the current status of payments not made to each construction cost (A), the provisional settlement by the head of each Tong in 2012, the details of each passbook transaction (A), the details of each passbook transaction (G), the detailed statement of execution by each construction case, a certified copy of each register of accounts, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational embezzlement and the choice of imprisonment);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence is that the amount embezzled by the defendant does not reach a total of 150,118,500 won. However, considering all the circumstances in the instant case, such as the fact that the defendant promises the victim to repay or reimburse a significant portion of the amount of the above damage and the victim does not want the punishment for the defendant by agreement with the victim, that the defendant does not have a criminal record, that the defendant does not have a criminal record, and that the defendant is against the defendant's awareness of the fact of the crime, the scope of recommendation recommended in the sentencing guidelines [the range of recommendation recommended in the sentencing guidelines [the range of the second type of embezzlement among the embezzlement crime group, which