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

The defendant, as the representative of the company E in Ulsan-gun, is a person who is engaged in the business of collecting national health insurance premiums, pension premiums, etc. from the wages of workers belonging to the company and paying them to the relevant agencies, such as the National Pension Service.

From March 2017 to July 201 of the same year, the Defendant collected 1,083,831 won from the victim F’s employment insurance premiums, national health insurance premiums, long-term care insurance premiums, national pension insurance premiums, and national pension insurance premiums from the company employees, and used 106 total victims’ employment insurance premiums, national health insurance premiums, long-term care insurance premiums, national pension premiums, and national pension premiums, which were collected from around January 2017 to around October 2017, and used 102,247,54 won in the company’s operation expenses, etc. while in business custody for the victim, without paying insurance premiums to the relevant agency around that time, while paying insurance premiums to the company’s operation expenses.

As a result, the defendant has embezzled each of the victims' property while in violation of their occupational duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the specifications of benefits, payment confirmation certificates, specifications of payment of daily labor costs, ledger of benefits, and detailed details of deductions;

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense / [Selection of imprisonment with prison labor]

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50, and the proviso to Article 42 of the same Act for the increase of concurrent crimes;

1. The grounds for judgment and sentencing as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defense counsel asserts to the effect that since the defendant did not receive the construction cost for a specific purpose or purpose from the original office company for four workers' four premiums, it does not constitute a crime of embezzlement on the ground that part of the contract was not paid as four premiums. However, the defendant receives the construction cost from the original office company.