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 becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

From around December 2003 to December 2009, the Defendant, while working in the victim promotion credit information company (former Hudson Korea) B branch, was in charge of collecting the claim from the obligor with respect to the claim entrusted by the said company and depositing the repayment into the designated account of the said company.

On June 15, 2005, the Defendant, at an infinite place, received KRW 2,200,000 from the debtor C of the above company as repayment, and kept in the business for the above company. At that time, he embezzled it at his discretion by using it and embezzled it from that time, from that time until May 15, 2009, he embezzled KRW 67,793,50 in total over 14 times, as shown in the list of crimes by the same method.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Complaints of E preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (Submission of suspect data, complainants, and additional materials for reference);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The crime of this case for sentencing reasons under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is a case where the defendant used the collection money that the defendant received from the debtor for personal purposes while serving as the victim's debt collector. The amount of the embezzled money remains approximately KRW 60 million, and the defendant's punishment power remains much, etc. In unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's acknowledgement of the crime of this case, it reflects his mistake in depth. The defendant's repayment of KRW 50 million to the victim is more favorable conditions such as recovery of damage, and all kinds of sentencing conditions shown in the trial of this case shall be determined as the order.