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

Punishment of the crime

From October 3, 2009 to permanent residence B, the Defendant, as an accounting employee of the victim “agricultural partnership C” (representative D) in the victim’s “agricultural partnership C” (representative D), engaged in business affairs, such as arranging the details of transactions and paying money.

Around March 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 1,00,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative (G) account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the company using the Internet banking device to arbitrarily use the Defendant’s personal use, such as living expenses, etc.; and (b) embezzled KRW 413,414,167 in total over 177 times from around that time to March 12, 2013, such as the list of crimes, from around 177 to around 12, 2013, by means of the foregoing method, remitted KRW 413,414,167 from the corporate name bank account (E or H) to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of F in the name of the company; and (c) embezzled the property of the victim for personal use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. In light of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act’s grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of punishment] types 2 (100 million won to 50 million won] (1 to 3 years) of the basic area (1 to 100 million won), there is no person who has a special penal penalty [the decision of sentencing] [the amount of loss caused by embezzlement is higher, damage is not recovered properly, etc., the sentence against the defendant is inevitable

In addition to the above unfavorable circumstances, considering all the conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflected attitude, a part of the amount of damage was returned, and the first offender, etc., the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines (one year) seems to be excessive, and thus, the punishment was determined by escaping from the lower limit.