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.

From April 1, 2007 to January 31, 2013, the Defendant has been engaged in accounting duties, such as management of apartment rent and management expenses, at the victim C apartment management office located in Chuncheon City B.

On August 31, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 820,000 from the occupant of the apartment from the above management office, and was in the custody of the victim for business purposes. At that time, the Defendant paid credit card bills according to mind or consumed them for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

From that time until January 30, 2013, the Defendant consumed total of KRW 31,486,950 in total on 44 occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Form.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each police statement protocol to E and F;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 355 (1) (main sentence) and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [type of crime] the range of the recommended punishment, which is less than 100 million won (the scope of the recommended punishment], for four through one year and four months (the basic area);

2. The Defendant, who has already been punished for the same kind of crime, has a long-term period of crime, and there are some unfavorable circumstances such as the total sum of embezzlement.

On the other hand, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, who was sentenced to a fine not later than nine years prior to the previous previous previous criminal conviction, and there was no record of special criminal punishment except for this, the victim received insurance money of 30,036,190 won from Seoul Guarantee Insurance (the State) and received most of the damages, and the defendant paid the above insurance money of 1,00,000 won every month from February 28, 2016 to Seoul Guarantee Insurance (the State).