A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant embezzled the business rights of the “EPC room”, which is the business property, by transferring to H the total price of KRW 300 million, even though there was no agreement between the victim F and the victim G, who is the partner of the “EPC room” and the victim F and the Defendant did not settle the distribution of profits and losses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The respective legal statements of F and G in part;

1. Investigation report (proof of contents - liquidation of the relationship with the same business, and notification of scheduled final disposition of Emerckbs), certification of contents, and each notification;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transfer and receipt of a comprehensive business;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is reasonable, the defendant's arbitrary disposal of scambling, which is the same business property, is large enough.

However, according to the records, the following circumstances revealed in the records: (i) it appears that the trust relationship between the defendant and the victims was lost due to disputes arising between the operation of the crupt and the distribution of profits from the crupt; (ii) the defendant who provided the name of the wife for the operation of the crupt and the accumulation of debts to the victims; and (iii) the amount equivalent to the crupt disposal amount was appropriated for the crupt lease obligation; (iv) the victims claimed that the crupt lease obligation corresponds to the crupt's investment portion; (v) the amount of the crupt and the crupt's investment amount is not consistent with the profit distribution ratio; and (v) the defendant reported the crupt's estimate, etc. to F before the commencement of the crupt; and (v) there is doubt as to whether the crupt is an individual obligation of the defendant for the crupt during the business period of the crupt.