When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant, as a public official of Grade VIII in the category of industry belonging to D Seed Management Office, produced superior seeds among seeds, such as rice, barley, and bean, and entrusted to agricultural cooperatives, sold them to agricultural farmers in the Do. From 2002 to February 201, the Defendant, while working for the distribution team from 2002 to 201, assigned products to agricultural households in the jurisdiction to select and select products through contract cultivation. From March 201 to 201, the Defendant performed duties to increase seeds to be loaned to seed farms while working for the production team.

On April 1, 2010, the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 980,00 (three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-three-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one (3-one-one-one-one) of the reserve seeds, which were kept in custody in preparation for a transportation accident, by selling and consuming all the amount of the reserve seeds, including the amount of KRW 960,000 won on November 17, 2012, KRW 320,000 on April 3, 2013, and KRW 110,000 on March 27, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A statement of transactions in agricultural accounts;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation;

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. It is difficult to recognize the uniformity and continuity of a criminal's intent in light of the time interval between each of the concurrent crimes, etc., and it is difficult to regard it as a single comprehensive crime.

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment is that the defendant arbitrarily sold and embezzled the seeds of agricultural products kept in the Seed Management Office by recognizing the status of a public official and taking advantage of his position, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not somewhat weak;

I would like to say.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, that the defendant's embezzled seeds are "one-way seed" after disinfection, and that the amount of embezzlement is relatively little.