A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On November 21, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution at the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court on the crime of embezzlement, and the above judgment was finalized on November 29, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

From April 2007, the Defendant operated the Agricultural Machinery Repair Point with the “C” trade name.

In around 2009, the Defendant entered into a consignment contract with the damaged company E (hereinafter “victim”) in Pyeongtaek-si D, and sold the agricultural machinery provided by the victimized company to the customer, and paid to the victimized company immediately upon receipt of the payment paid by the customer.

The Defendant, around May 201, had a single 16.8 million won market price from the victimized Company, sold to GaF with a total of KRW 16.8 million.

Although the Defendant received the above payment from the victim company, he received the payment and kept it. At that time, he arbitrarily used the Defendant’s other agricultural machinery purchase proceeds, etc., and sold the agricultural machinery of the victimized company from December 2, 2009 to May 2, 201, and embezzled the sales proceeds of KRW 269,65,000 by arbitrarily consumed it to the victimized company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Accounting books for the complainants;

1. A report on investigation (report in currency with a complainant);

1. A previous conviction in the judgment: Criminal history records, the list of related cases, and the defendant of the relevant judgment stated that the damaged company's credit purchased from the victimized company about Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 13 of the annexed crime list does not constitute embezzlement because the damaged company was not entrusted with the sale of the goods to the defendant.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., G, the representative director of the victimized company.