1. From February 2017, the Defendant was engaged in occupational embezzlement management and settlement of accounts as a manager of the room of the floor of the 3th floor of the 2nd floor of the 3nd floor of the 3nd floor of the 3nd floor of the building in

On February 9, 2017, the Defendant paid the above amount to KRW 3,035,00,000, such as the amount of use of the room at the time when the Defendant was kept for the victim D at the above time room around February 9, 2017.

Around that time, Cheongju consumeds personal use such as living expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property in his occupational custody.

2. From February 9, 2017, at around 04:30 on February 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) stolen one s and liners equivalent to 59,000 won at the market price, which is the victim’s ownership behind the calculation at the above location; and (b) stolen the summary of the evidence.

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of Chapter 1 of the CCTV for editing CCTV images at the location of the D's written statement;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of intent) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of punishment on the recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines: The scope of punishment on the aggravated multiple offenses for which the basic area (the scope of punishment on the recommendation) of crimes (the scope of punishment on the recommendation from April to February, 100) is nonexistent (the scope of punishment on the recommendation from April, 200) and the basic area (the scope of punishment from June to June) of crimes (the person subject to special sentencing) is nonexistent (the scope of punishment on the recommendation from June to February, 2: the scope of the comparison of punishment with the recommendation from February: June to February, 2:

2. Determination of sentence - No effort has been made to recover damage or make efforts to commit a normal situation unfavorable to the defendant. Agreement is reached. On September 23, 2015, four previous criminal records of the same criminal case, such as punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, issued by a person who was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months from his/her prison term of imprisonment with prison labor, and three times among them, repeated crimes of the same kind within a short period of time (where a crime of fraud is included, five times before and after 2015), which are previous criminal records after 2015. There is no social relationship between the defendant and the defendant.