A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant and the victim C agreed to operate the distribution distribution business in a way that the Defendant secured the distribution room of the distribution of the distribution and purchased the distribution of the distribution to the sales room designated by the Defendant by the victim and distributed the distribution of the distribution to the sales room designated by the Defendant.

On April 5, 2016, the Defendant, “D Company in Incheon” and “E Company in Daegu,” respectively, sent trends to “D Company” and “E Company” respectively.

The Defendant received KRW 21 million from “D” company, and KRW 5 million from “E” company, and embezzled it by using the funds for purchasing double-flows, operating expenses, etc. in mind without remitting it to the victim’s account in the name of the victim, in the same day.

Summary of Evidence

The grounds for sentencing under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 100 million won) of the Criminal Act for the criminal defendant's statutory statement C (amended by Act No. 100 million won), a copy of the passbook, a copy of the statement of transaction (Submission of suspect data), a criminal investigation report (D Company F's telephone statement), a criminal investigation report, a criminal investigation report (Attachment of statement of remittance), a criminal investigation report (written statement of transaction of suspect company bank account), and the reasons for sentencing under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 3555(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust under Article 62(1) of the Selection of Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 100 million won) (amended by Act No. 1000), the basic area (amended by Act No. 4068, Jan. 14, 2008) ]

It is also disadvantageous to the defendant, who has a record of being fined once due to the same crime.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects it.