However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 23, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 150,000,00 from the Victim K to G in relation to the “J”, which is operated by G in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, with respect to the “F” in the course of subcontracting from the I Co., Ltd., and delivered it around that time.

On June 14, 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the said H Co., Ltd. located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Ha on the grounds that the said H Co., Ltd. could not receive subcontracting from I Co., Ltd.; (b) returned KRW 100 million out of the above investment money to the check around September 14, 2009; and (c) received the remaining KRW 50 million from the said G to the Defendant’s account at his wife’s wife on November 30, 2009, and embezzled it by using the Defendant’s personal business investment and business expenses at his own discretion around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, N, and K;

1. A statement to the effect that an accused has been used without the permission of the complainant after returning investment funds to the prosecutor's office in the suspect examination protocol;

1. Statement to the effect that the defendant has used 100 million won after returning money to the police suspect examination protocol (one time);

1. A receipt of a security deposit and a letter of performance in which H works are conducted;

1. A statement of inquiry about requests for the details of transactions not requested [the intent of embezzlement is recognized inasmuch as the defendant returned the returned money to the complainant or used the money for the foreign capital inducement project promoted jointly with the complainant, and thus, the defendant used the returned money for the business of attracting foreign capital jointly with the complainant, as alleged by the defendant, insofar as the money was used for the business of attracting foreign capital, the intent of embezzlement is recognized unless it is concealed that the money was returned to the complainant

Application of Statutes

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The amount of embezzlement for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the maximum amount, or the defendant.