A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has worked as the head of the steel team at the site of a new E-construction project located in Sejong Special Self-Governing CityD.

On April 20, 2014, the Defendant agreed to receive money from the victim F to return the said money to the victim upon receiving money from the victim F in the course of performing the said construction work, which was first received as personnel expenses, and later used it later, after receiving money from the victim as personnel expenses.

The defendant from July 1, 2014 to the same year.

8. From October, 80 to the point of view, from the victim under the above agreement, the victim transferred totaling 52,945,000 won to the victim as personnel expenses for G et al. that he provided at the above site, and the victim was kept for the victim, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table of Crimes, and then the victim urged the payment of wages from other on-site figures who are being performing the construction work under the contract from the former Trops Co., Ltd., the victim embezzled KRW 33,507,200 out of the above amount for personal purposes, such as personnel expenses for the above on-site employees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes that describe account transactions details;

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (Consideration favorable circumstances among the following sentencing grounds) of the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant borrowed money from the person who suffered damage from a construction company as collateral to receive payment from the said company and used it to use it for the person or on-site security in another construction site. Thus, the Defendant did not have the status of keeping the money for the victim.

The charges are denied by asserting that they are facts charged.

According to each evidence of the judgment, the following facts are recognized:

A. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant is located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City D from the Construction Company.