A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Embezzlement;

A. On June 9, 201, the Defendant: (a) around June 201, sold precious metal to the victim D at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the face of the purchase price.

It received 10,000,000 won from the injured party and 2,700,000 won per half of the market price of 10,000 won or more from the injured party, 1 and 8,500,000 won permond string.

The Defendant embezzled the precious metal by arbitrarily disposing of the said precious metal, such as borrowing the said precious metal as collateral, from the pawnpo in Seoul Jongno-gu on the same day, while keeping the said precious metal for the victim.

B. On June 15, 201, the Defendant: (a) around June 15, 201, sold precious metal to the victim D at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the face of the purchase price.

15 million won was reported by the injured party and 15 million won was reported by the injured party.

The Defendant embezzled the precious metal by arbitrarily disposing of the said precious metal, such as borrowing the said precious metal as collateral, from the pawnpo in Seoul Jongno-gu on the same day, while keeping the said precious metal for the victim.

2. Around December 2016, the Defendant: (a) by telephone at the office of G’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s operation of the Defendant, sent the Victim H admond to the pawnpo because of the lack of money to trade; (b) provided that, if he/she borrowed KRW 100 million to B, he/she would recover the Montreal and pay the Defendant admond money with the profit accrued from his/her sale until January 5, 2017.

However, even if the defendant received KRW 100 million from the injured party at the time, he did not recover the Montreal and repay it. The defendant did not have any asset in his name, and there was no asset in his name, and the collection charge was not in excess of KRW 3 billion, and even if he had already been invested in about KRW 1 billion for the Montreal program, he could not pay such profit.