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

The Defendant: (a) the Victim C, who she d, she d, she d while living in the Gosiwon and living together with the woman, was using the passbook (Account Number E) in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant as one of his/her monthly passbook; and (b) brought the money of the Victim C to be used for personal purposes.

On November 25, 2015, the Defendant, in the form of re-issuance of a passbook of KRW 24,000,115 at the Dobong-ro 215, Dobong-gu, Seoul, 2015, was used for personal purposes by withdrawing or remitting KRW 18,19,984 in cash at will from February 1, 2016 to February 1, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. C Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing filing of complaint;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 25(1), 31(1), (2), and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for Compensation Orders

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is that the money deposited in the passbook under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant passbook”) was known to the Defendant and used as the money of the Defendant, who is the Defendant, not the victim C, and thus, a judgment dismissing the prosecution ought to be pronounced.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence prior to the determination, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, at the time when the Defendant requested the opening of the passbook from ar, knew that the above passbook was used by C. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The defendant opened the passbook of this case.