A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, [Attachment 7] Nos. 7 and 9 shall apply.

Punishment of the crime

From December 24, 2007 to January 19, 2010, the Defendant, as a local manager of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) operated by E (hereinafter “victim”), was in charge of construction orders, on-site management, and construction cost receipts and payments, and funding execution.

1. On March 2008, the Defendant: (a) completed the construction work after receiving from G in the process of local underground tea in the U.S. Emirate with F; and (b) completed the construction work after completing the construction work.

4. From G around 12.12. At the time of July 2, 2014, the date of the closing of argument at 70,000: (a) one DNA is KRW 277.43,43; and (b) the injured company was kept in custody for the victimized company after payment from G; (c) around that time, the injured company’s money was wrongfully consumed and embezzled as indicated in attached Table 1 to 6,8,10, as well as attached Table 1 to 6, and 10.

2. Around August 2010, the Defendant leased one mixed machine owned by D to Hyundai Construction at the construction site of modern construction, which is located in the warehouse of Pakistan, Pakistan, at the site of the construction of modern construction in the U.S. Emirate, and around January 13, 201, the Defendant received 6,600 kilograms from Hyundai Construction as equipment rental fees and used it in mind without returning it to E by the representative of the victimized Company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and I;

1. An interrogation protocol of the police officer against the accused (including E and I statements);

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant (including E and I's statement)

1. The Defendant asserts that the construction work listed in No. 1 of the annexed crime list Nos. 1 in the annexed crime list Nos. 1 does not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement against the victimized company on the ground that F was partly distributed from F as the construction work that F was personally contracted from G belongs to F.

However, this Court has duly adopted it.