A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a certified tax accountant office in his/her trade name and is engaged in a certified tax accountant business in Ansan-gu B.

1. Around May 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) requested a tax return and payment of capital gains tax, etc. in relation to the purchase and sale of apartment owned by the victim D; (b) received remittance from the victim under the name of capital gains tax payment; and (c) used the victim for investment in his/her shares on the same day during his/her business storage for the victim.

2. On August 13, 2018, each embezzlement suspect against the victim E and F requested the victim’s husband G and the victim E to report and pay taxes, such as capital gains tax, in relation to the sale of forest land under the joint name of the victim E at the above location. The victim E and F transferred KRW 29,076,890 for the payment of capital gains tax from the victim E and F, and used them for the victims’ investment in his/her stocks on the same day during the course of business storage.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victims who had been on duty two times as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and H;

1. Receipts (A), account transfer statements, letters, and tax payment notices;

1. Application of a duplicate or tax payment notice statute;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes [the scope of recommending punishment under the sentencing criteria] - Occupational Embezzlement - the scope of final sentence according to the increase of multiple crimes in the basic area (from April to April 14) (the basic area (the less than 100 million won) : April to 2 (the decision of sentencing) seems to have taken the attitude of confession and reflection of the defendant.

However, in light of the method of crime and the scale of embezzlement, it is not good that the crime is committed.

There was no agreement with the victims or no reimbursement of damages.

Such circumstances and the age of the defendant;