A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On December 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a crime of opening gambling places at the Jeonju District Court, and was released on July 29, 2016 from a military prison on parole on the execution of the sentence, and the parole period was terminated on August 22, 2016.

[2] On May 25, 2017, the Defendant’s high-class social relationship, E received a request for money exchange from the Victim F, who was travelling in the Republic of China, from the Defendant, and received the account number (H) of G’s Saemaul Savings Depository (U), a non-registered money exchanger, through the Defendant, and notified the victim. When the victimized party remitted KRW 40 million to the said account, G transferred the said money to the said account, he/she exchanged the said money to USD 1, an employee, and ordered the Defendant to deliver the said money to the Defendant under E’s direction.

On May 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received the payment of USD 267,00,00 ($ 36,488,220), which is the money exchanged from the said G’s order, from the J hotel casino casino Kro-stud in China; (b) received from the said G’s order and embezzled the money into Korea, without delivering it to the victim via E, while entering the Republic of Korea, while being kept for the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. Each police statement made with respect to I, L, or F;

1. Recording recording (for example 8);

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as investigation reports (prior convictions for repeated crimes), criminal history, etc.;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

2. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and defense counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the public prosecution of this case should be dismissed in the application of Articles 361 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act, since the owner and the truster of this case are "E, which is the higher-class relationship of the defendant, and E expresses his intention not to want punishment against the defendant."

The crime of embezzlement is about another person's property.