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

2. The defendant's defense counsel claiming negligent disposal argues to the effect that the defendant can obtain permission from the affected bank to dispose of the raman processing machine. However, according to the evidence of conviction presented above, the defendant's defense counsel argued to the effect that it is an negligent disposal. However, according to the evidence of conviction, where the damaged bank permits the disposal of the defendant by the injured bank and takes substitution for other security, the damaged bank did not accept the alternative security because it is highly likely that the act would be constituted (10 pages of investigation records), and the defendant or the disposal officer also knew that the damaged bank did not have permission from the affected bank, and made a disposition without reasonable doubt (2,3 pages of the E witness record). Thus, the above argument is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of the recommended punishment * When considering the market price of the rash processing machine as inferior, the defendant was found to be most favorable, and the basic area of Category 1 (not less than 100 million) (not more than January 1 to October) (the market price of the rash processing machine * 63 million won, which is the market price of the rash processing machine : the person subject to each special sentencing of Category 2 (not less than 100 million won and less than 50 million won) in the basic area (not less than June 2 to 2 years): The person subject to no punishment.

2. The sentence of sentence clearly recognizes that the defendant's act causing damage to the damaged bank and deducts the security from the Chinese legal entity that acquired the defendant's share, and disposes of the rash oil purchased at KRW 117,50,000 per unit after the lapse of two years, and thus, the fact that the value of the rash would have been considerable differently from the defense counsel's assertion is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it is advantageous to the defendant, such as the agreement with the damaged bank, the fact that the defendant has no criminal record of the suspension of execution or more, and the defendant has led to his crime at the end of the public trial, unlike the opinions of