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

On February 22, 2017, the Defendant entered into a joint agreement with the victim E to sell lands located in the area F in the wife population at the time of Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Sung-si, and embezzled KRW 40 million out of the above money for the purpose of personal debt repayment, living expenses, etc. on February 23, 2017 after receiving transfer of KRW 50 million from the victim to the Industrial Bank of Korea account in the name of D Co., Ltd. under the pretext of investment in the sale agency business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A statement of grounds for appeal prepared by E;

1. Account transactions attached to the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (second time) (28-32 pages of investigation records by the prosecution);

1. Application of a joint agreement on the vicarious execution of parcelling-out (Investigation Record 8-10), a contract for parcelling-out (Investigation Record 12 pages), a detailed statement of deposit passbook for investment funds (Investigation Record 54-5 pages) to statutes;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (the determination of a type) shall be limited to the amount of embezzlement and breach of trust [the category 1] below the amount of 100 million won (the special sentencing person] below the amount of mitigation of punishment: The area of mitigation of punishment [the area of recommendation and the scope of recommended punishment], the area of mitigation of punishment, one month of imprisonment through ten months;

3. The sentence of punishment of this case does not have considerable damage from the crime of this case, but the defendant committed the crime of this case without any pressure as the defendant was in the absence of business, compensating for the damage, making a smooth agreement with the victim, recognizing the error, and reflecting it. There is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, as a whole, all the sentencing factors of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime.