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

The Defendant is a person who works in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul as a business employee in the “E” operation of the victim D in Gwangju and has been engaged in the sales and delivery of alcoholic beverages and sales proceeds.

On December 27, 2007, the Defendant supplied alcoholic beverages, such as mountain routing, to a general restaurant in the trade name of "F" located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and embezzled 128,000 won, which was received from the owner of the above restaurant's business, and kept in his/her business for the victim.

In addition, from that time until July 7, 2008, the Defendant: (a) collected total of KRW 13,105,000 on a total of 85 occasions as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes; and (b) embezzled the amount of money temporarily stored for the victim, which was consumed by the Special Self-Governing Province of Gwangju for living expenses, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning D police statements;

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (the point of each business embezzlement and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the basic area of sentencing [Article 62(1) [Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act] [Article 62(1) [Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Article 62(1) [Article 62(4) [Article 62 of the Act] [Article 62(1) [Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution] [Article 62(1) of the Basic Area (Article 4-1 year and April 4] [Article 62 of the Act on the Determination of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.