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

On December 20, 2010, the Defendant entered into a service contract with the victim E society (hereinafter referred to as “victim church”) in Ansan-si around December 20, 2010, and has been engaged in the F building auction and lighting for the transfer of the victim church.

On March 4, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 21,708,00 from G and H to the court under the pretext of the prepayment of expenses for compulsory execution for the F building auction, which was delegated by the victim church, and deposited to the court. On March 7, 2011, the Defendant used KRW 4,00,000 in the name of the first bank account (J) used by the Defendant in the name of the Defendant, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 17,649,00 in the name of the lessee for the expenses for the execution of the K director, while he/she used KRW 5,00 in the name of the Defendant’s loan repayment on May 3, 201. < Amended by Act No. 1000, Mar. 7, 2011; Act No. 10064, May 31, 2011>

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the second trial records;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of a statement of account transactions);

1. A receipt, a detailed statement of receipt and disbursement of prepayment, and a receipt for court preservation money;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the service agreement;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Services Criminal Act, the Defendant and defense counsel agreed that the Defendant would receive KRW 37 million as the successful bid price in the F building, and H would not be held accountable for embezzlement, instead of bringing about KRW 15 million out of the compulsory execution fee, as H would allow the Defendant to use the remainder of the compulsory execution fee in advance.

Modern, H. In the investigative agency.