A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who was engaged in the sales and collection of medicine from around 2003 to July 12, 2013 as the Vice Minister of Business of the Victim C, a drug supplier in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul.

The Defendant, from around 2009 to July 3, 201, was unable to cover his family’s living expenses, and was able to use economic pressure such as obtaining bonds in cash for the supply of medicines of the victim company with high living pressure. On February 5, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 5,435,950 for the supply of medicines from the above member’s office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and embezzled them for personal purposes such as repayment of bonds and repayment, while he was in the business of receiving KRW 5,435,950 for the victim from the above member’s office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul around February 5, 2010. The Defendant embezzled it for personal purposes such as payment of bonds and repayment at around that time. From around that time to July 3, 2013, each customer spent the total amount of the supply of medicines at KRW 186,819,892 from each member of the business to make up for the victim at KRW 117 times in total as indicated in the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to file a complaint, a detailed statement of deposits transactions, copies of bankbooks, and each investigation report;

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

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act in consideration of the fact that the criminal defendant repents his/her wrong mistake,

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;