A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

From September 1, 2013, the Defendant had been engaged in the operation and management of the said Daegu Branch as a principal partner of the victim E, a victim’s principal office located in the Daegu-gu University Branch from around 1, 2013.

1. Occupational embezzlement;

A. On November 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 4 million of operating expenses for November from the injured party; and (b) received KRW 5 million of operating expenses for the said injured party; and (c) around that time, withdrawn KRW 500,000 from the Japanese Won in Daegu Si, Daegu, and consumed them for personal purposes, such as living expenses and repayment of debts.

From around that time to April 21, 2014, the Defendant withdrawn a total of KRW 11,00,000,000 on seven occasions, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and embezzled at one of the members in Daegu City arbitrarily consumed it for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc.

B. Around March 28, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from Bloddrid for the use of the tubes for three months, and embezzled for the said victim’s occupational storage. Around that time, the Defendant used the same for personal use, such as living expenses, in mind, from the Japanese Won in Daegu City.

2. On July 15, 2014, the Defendant intruded into the said office in order to have a computer containing business information carried out at the F office of an incorporated association located in the main office of the D University located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and to leave the said office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution (including the E statement part);

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Certification of deposit transaction details [the defendant did not have any intention to intrude any structure;

However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant stated that the partnership with the victim was terminated at around 17:00 on July 15, 2014, and that the office was opened. The victim was an employee of the security company around 19:00 on the same day, and he did not enter the office because the defendant was on his work, which could have been unlawfully invaded.