Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From September 14, 201 to May 13, 2013, the Defendant was engaged in managing customers, keeping books, and filing tax returns at a victim C tax accounting corporation located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. On August 8, 2012, the Defendant embezzled KRW 5,333,400, which was received from the said tax accounting corporation office as a business partner, for the victim’s business for tax payment. At that time, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 21,216,229 in total eight times from May 3, 2013, as indicated in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the E, F, G, and H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing Appellants, accusers' evidential data, andG evidential data;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not specify the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s instant crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order, but is not suitable to transfer the type of crime. In particular, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime after having been sentenced to imprisonment for two years at the Seoul Western District Court on August 24, 201 with respect to the crime of occupational embezzlement under the same Act as the instant crime, and three years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on October 28, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 201, there is room

However, considering the above-mentioned favorable circumstances, considering the fact that the defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case and did not repeat again, the victim's side and the original agreement was reached, and if the sentence of imprisonment is finalized after the sentence of imprisonment is sentenced as a result of this case, the two years suspended after the suspension of the above execution should be returned together, and when considering the above favorable circumstances, this is somewhat harsh to the defendant.