A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, as the head of the business team of the victim C corporation located in Seo-gu, Gwangju from August 16, 2004 to November 201, 201, has been engaged in the business of selling, delivering, and collecting the horses, ducks of the said corporation.

2. Around January 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) collected 8,300,000 won for the supply of chickens and ducks in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; and (b) used the same for personal purposes, such as living expenses, according to the mind of the Defendant in Gwangju City.

The Defendant, including that, from the above date to November 20 of the same year, embezzled a total of KRW 10,991,80 by the above four means, as shown in the annexed crime list, from the above point of time to the point of time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Submission of data on embezzlement details);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order and Article 59 of the Probation Act [decision of the type] The basic field of embezzlement and breach of trust [decision of the recommended area] [the scope of recommendation] from April to one year and four months / [decision of the sentence] the defendant embezzleds the price of delivered goods recovered several times in the victim company while working in the victim company. Since the crime of embezzlement on January 15, 201 of the defendant, the victim company provided the defendant an opportunity again after the crime of embezzlement, provided the victim company provided the defendant with an opportunity to repay the amount of embezzlement, the victim company provided the defendant with an opportunity to repay the amount of embezzlement, and the victim company did not reach an agreement with the victim company up to now, it seems that a strict punishment is necessary for the defendant. However, the defendant is against the defendant's misunderstanding his/her own mistake, and the defendant is against the defendant.