Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A, from around 201 to April 21, 2012, a victim E, a corporation located in Young-gun D, has been engaged in freezing management and sale of freezing storage in custody, which is owned by the victim, while serving as the factory site of the victim E, a person who has been engaged in freezing management and sale. Defendant B is a person who has been engaged in freshing and retail business after receiving excavation costs from the victim.

On May 2003, the Defendants sold the digging expense to Defendant B at a price lower than 20 to 40% of the victim’s future market price in the Young-gun Non-Song-gun area around early 2003, and Defendant B conspired to pay the amount to Defendant A who is not the victim.

On May 2, 2003, the Defendants carried out the amount equivalent to KRW 792,00,000, the market price of the victim’s possession, at the freezing warehouse of the victim company, together with the amount of 792,00,000, and embezzled by means of being loaded on the Defendant B’s vehicle, and then embezzled from around that time to April 21, 2012, as shown in the separate crime list, the Defendants carried out the amount of 119,652,00 won (the “119,812,000 won” in the indictment appears to have been written by mistake) equivalent to the total market price of the victim’s ownership over 111 times, as shown in the separate crime list.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make up for the occupational embezzlement of the expense owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of Schedule to Transactions in Agricultural Cooperatives;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356, 355 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of punishment (generally: Defendant B does not have the identity of a custodian in the line of duty; Defendant B does not have the identity of a custodian in the line of duty; thus, the punishment prescribed in the proviso to Article 33 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is imposed, and each

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act that has no record of criminal punishment except for the two-time fine criminal records, reflects the crime of this case, and deposits to Defendant A equivalent to 80% of the amount of

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (Defendant B) of the community service order;