A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for embezzlement at the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 13th of the same month.

The Defendant, as an actual operator of the farming association corporation C, was engaged in the business of shipping and transporting rice in the possession of the damaged company in the warehouse in accordance with the deposit contract with D companies that suffered damage.

On September 13, 2013, the Defendant was instructed from the victimized Company to deliver 40 kilograms of rice 7,000 mills of weight, and 10,895.15 mills of weight around December 30, 2013 to Liber Agricultural Association Co., Ltd.

Around that time, the Defendant: (a) carried 3,069.65 Pos, out of the foregoing rice in custody for the victimized company, as C agricultural partnership using the cargo, and processed it as C; and (b) arbitrarily disposed of Nurung Factory.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victimized company equivalent to KRW 181,109,350 (3,069.65 x 59,000).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each warehouse storage contract, a certificate of grain storage, and a letter of order for grain delivery;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal history and report criminal investigation (report accompanied by a copy of the judgment);

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes: Provided, That the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 39(1) is large and the damage did not be recovered is disadvantageous.

The fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his mistake, and the crime of this case is to consider equality in the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the judgment that became final and conclusive in relation to the crime of this case. The defendant's age, sex, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined by taking into account all the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records of this case and the trial process.