A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 19, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment at the Suwon District Court for fraud, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 27, 2012.

From May 1, 1997, the defendant, as the head of the management office of the Gu in Ansan-si, has been engaged in the collection of management expenses and payment of public charges of the above D occupants who are victims.

Around March 2011, the Defendant received management expenses of KRW 192,420 from the occupants of 3.3 p. 303 p.m. at the above D management office, and had been kept in cash, and used at will, at that time, the Defendant did not deposit the management office’s account in one bank account established under the name of the management office.

In addition, from March 2006 to April 201, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed total of 81,434,407 won and embezzled total of 48 times, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement of E;

1. Demand notice of arrears in water supply and sewerage charges, etc. (investigative Records, 19-35 pages), copies of bankbooks (investigative Records, 37 pages), disbursement resolution (investigative Records, 38-53 pages), copies of passbooks (investigative Records, 54-90 pages), management expenses collection ledger, etc. (investigative Records, 54-90 pages), copies of bankbooks and specifications of transactions, etc. (investigative Records, 99-125 pages);

1. Previous convictions: Application of a copy of judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Overallly, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The reason for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1)1 of the Criminal Code dealing with concurrent crimes is that the defendant embezzled management expenses and public charges for five years following the sentencing of the defendant, thereby causing considerable damage to the apartment residents; the defendant paid a considerable amount of money, but the amount of payment is about KRW 30,000,000,000, and the defendant seems to have forged the contents of the passbook to conceal the crime, and thus, the defendant should be punished strictly.

However, the crime of this case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant's repayment of damage.