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

The Defendant, from August 23, 2016 to July 19, 2018, had an office in the Gyeong-gun B, and worked as the representative director of C, a corporation established for the purpose of operating a medical institution washing goods laundering business, etc., and has overall control over the management of the company’s funds and the execution of funds.

On July 13, 2017, the Defendant repaid the Defendant’s debt by remitting the amount of KRW 50 million to E, which was kept in the corporate bank D account in the name of C, at the above C office.

On August 1, 2017, the Defendant repaid the Defendant’s obligation by remitting KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s creditors, which was kept in the company’s corporate bank D account in the name of C, and KRW 10 million to the corporate bank F account in the name of C, and on August 1, 2018, the charged facts were deemed as August 1, 2017, but are deemed as obvious clerical errors, and thus, the Defendant corrected and recognized it.

The defendant's debt was repaid by remitting 50 million won to E, which was kept in the corporate bankF account in the name of C corporation.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled 150 million won of the damaged company's funds for personal purposes while in his/her business custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on trading lists;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant is aware of the facts of the offense and commits a mistake.

The amount paid by the Defendant to E and G is recognized as the repayment of the Defendant’s personal debt, which appears to be a debt related to the I’s business that the Defendant had operated before the conversion into a corporation, and this obligation is eventually omitted from the object of investment in kind in the process of incorporation.