If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is a holder of a new bank B account.

On November 8, 2013, the Defendant had the victim C deposit KRW 20 million into the said new bank account under the name of the Defendant by mistake, and had the victim keep the said KRW 20 million for the sake of the victim.

From November 12, 2013 to the 14th day of the same month, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 18 million out of the above deposit amount of KRW 20 million, which was kept for the victim by the community credit cooperatives in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu for the victim, and then wrongfully embezzled the amount of KRW 14 million for personal use, such as repayment of debts and living expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Inquiry into the details of complaint, deposit certificates, liquidity transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (written confirmation of details of transactions and reporting accompanied by a detailed statement of transactions);

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The scope of sentencing recommended on the sentencing criteria, embezzlement, and basic areas of less than 100 million won in breach of trust: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months from April to April; and

2. The fact that the defendant's decision of sentencing is against the defendant when committing a crime, and that there is no previous conviction is a sentencing data favorable to the defendant.

The fact that the amount of damage in this case is not easy, and that the defendant does not pay damages or agree with the victim is sentencing materials disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering various conditions of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, and circumstances after the crime, sentencing of the accused is excessive. The sentence of a suspended sentence to imprisonment does not seem to be an appropriate choice of sentence against the accused who does not make any damage upon the imposition of community service order. Thus, the sentence of a suspended sentence to imprisonment is determined by a fine.