A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From June 20, 2009 to December 27, 2012, the Defendant served as an employee in Section D operated by the victim C in Gwangju Mine-gu B and the first floor, and was engaged in the sales and collection of goods.

On May 201, 201, the Defendant supplied F in the same Gu E, a business partner of the said company, with goods, such as beer, and collected KRW 2,030,200, which was kept for the victim for business purposes. At that time, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the goods for the Defendant’s living expenses and debt repayment.

In addition, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the total amount of KRW 20,193,300, which was collected from the business partners in the same manner 36 times in total, as shown in the List of Crimes, from May 201 to October 201, 201, as well as from May 1, 201, the Defendant spent 20,193,30 for living expenses or debt repayment.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the victim's property in breach of his occupational duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a copy of a bankbook, details of account transactions, transaction details, and transaction specifications;

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Articles 355 (1) and 355 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [the scope of sentencing guidelines] - Class 1 (less than 100 million won) mitigation area (one month to October) - Where a special mitigated person is not subject to punishment or a significant damage has been restored [the decision of sentence] - The defendant has a record of being punished for a fine for occupational embezzlement even in 2007 and 2009 - The defendant has a record of being punished for a fine for occupational embezzlement in 2007 and 2009 - favorable circumstances: his/her mistake is recognized by the defendant; the defendant has no record of being punished for a suspended sentence since 203; the defendant has no record of being punished for