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

The Defendant, as an actual operator of the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd.”), was engaged in the overall operation and fund management of the Company, and the Victim Co., Ltd is a corporation established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of electricity, telecommunication, and fire materials

The Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from E to use the same as the proceeds of the project for solar power plants, the proceeds of the project for solar power plants, the proceeds of land purchase, etc. using D, which is another company than the victim company. On May 26, 2010, the victim company received KRW 600 million from F Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd. as material price from another company run by the Defendant.

While the Defendant kept the above KRW 600 million for the victim company, around May 26, 2010, the Defendant embezzled the amount equivalent to the above amount by having the Defendant’s wife H transfer the above KRW 600 million to E at the branch of KB Bank Bomun-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, under the pretext of performing obligations equivalent to the above KRW 500 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. E statements;

1. Details of passbook transaction; and

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of the cash settlement center for confirmation of financial statements, cash settlement center for each account in 2009, and the head of the cash settlement center for confirmation of financial statements, in 2010;

1. Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act for the crime concerned;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the decision of a sentence] The reason for the sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the grounds for the suspended sentence] [the decision of a sentence] types 3 (the amount of more than 500 million won to less than 5 billion won) [the special person] - the case where the actual one of the mitigation elements is not subject to the punishment of the company, or a case where a significant damage has been restored [the scope of the recommended sentence