A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 21, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment for breach of trust at the Suwon District Court.

6. 29. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant, as an actual operator of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) established for the purpose of the sale agency business, was in charge of C’s fund management duties while performing the sales agency business of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel, where the VeneAWD (hereinafter “Vene”) is in force.

On March 22, 2011, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 8,8410,00 as the down payment under the name of the Defendant’s wife’s 28th day of the same month while receiving KRW 867,69,759 from the Asian Trust Co., Ltd. to one bank account in the name of the victim C and being kept in custody for the victim for business purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to details of passbook transactions); and

1. A previous conviction in judgment: An inquiry report and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes for a criminal investigation report (Attachment to a judgment);

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act argues to the effect that since the KRW 7,0620,000 out of the KRW 8,8410,000 paid as the down payment was already treated as the provisional payment to the Defendant, it is difficult to view that C’s property was embezzled.

The resolution of the board of directors, as well as the absence of an agreement on interest or maturity in using large amount of company funds under the pretext of provisional payment, etc. for the purpose other than the expenditure for the company by the representative director of the company, or similar person who has dealt with the de facto affairs concerning the custody or operation of company funds.