A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant serves as the chairperson of the Victim E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) who is an incorporated victim from January 1, 201 to July 23, 2015, and is a person in charge of overall management of E’s affairs, such as an event plan, establishment of a plan, application for subsidies, and execution of subsidies.

The Defendant, based on the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Budget and Management of Subsidies, paid subsidies to E for the event cost in Gyeonggi-do, paid each event cost in installments or paid by falsity, and had the intent to embezzled by receiving a refund of the difference.

On March 31, 201, the Defendant received subsidies of KRW 12,000,00 from Gyeonggi-do to E for military officer education in the year 2011. On April 6, 2011, the Defendant deposited KRW 573,600 in an account in the name of F under the pretext of tuition expenses, but received KRW 223,600 out of the above amount from April 8, 201 to the account in the name of the Defendant.

In addition, from April 8, 201 to November 19, 2014, the Defendant paid subsidies under the name of various event expenses over a total of 156 times, as shown in the list of crimes, and embezzled total of 174,141,653 won as the method of returning the difference.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of G, H and I prepared for a public prosecutor;

1. Data on the settlement of subsidies for the year 201, 2012, 2013, and 2014;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of a book of accounts and a statement of revenues;

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

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

1. The crime of occupational embezzlement has continued for a considerable period of time for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing). In light of the fact that the amount of damage is a large amount, the liability for the crime is unlimited, the defendant recognizes all the facts of the crime, the defendant has no record of punishment so far, and the other crimes are committed.