On February 18, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court on February 18, 2014, and was released on January 30, 2015 during the execution of the sentence, and the parole period expired on March 31, 2015.

On September 24, 2015, the Defendant was appointed as the head of Cambodia branch in the Victim B Co., Ltd., and was to establish Cambodia branch and to perform the duties of local corporations.

On September 28, 2015, the Defendant: (a) transferred USD 1,600 to the cost of establishing and operating a legal entity from the victim company; and (b) received USD 10,000 from the construction registration cost on October 9 of the same year; and (c) received USD 5,400 on October 21 of the same year from the victim company in Cambodia; and (d) received USD 17,000 on three occasions a total of 17,00 on the pretext of the deposit and rent for the local branch office in the victim company; and (b) used USD 5,400 on three occasions without using USD 17,00 as the deposit and rent for the local branch office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Details of letters of the complainant and suspect;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendation] Article 35 of the Criminal Act / [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of punishment is less than 100 million won] Article 1 of the mitigated area (one month to ten months) [the person who has been specially mitigated] [the person who has been subject to special mitigation], or significant damage has been restored / The fact that the defendant is guilty of facts charged, the fact that the defendant has discharged the amount of

However, as stated in its reasoning, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being able to commit the same repeated crime, in light of the details of the crime, the form of the act, and the amount of damage, and the victim received money equivalent to the amount of damage from the Defendant, but is in Cambodia.