Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, a business embezzlement, from March 10, 2010 to December 13, 2012, has been engaged in the business division of “C”, the victim corporation located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and has been engaged in the sales and collection of remote areas of the said company.

On February 25, 2011, the Defendant provided a remote area E at the work site for D apartment remote areas in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, and collected KRW 23,000 from the price to receive KRW 23,00, and used it for personal purposes, such as living expenses, at the Seoul and Gyeonggi-gu Council.

In addition, from around that time to December 7, 2012, the Defendant consumed the total of KRW 4,197,700 by the same method over 12 times as indicated in the annexed crime list.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. The Defendant sold a remote area in the “H” operated by G in the Guri-si F, and collected all of the proceeds therefrom, and did not have any credit balance to be recovered from G. However, as described in paragraph (1), it could not be brought to the “C” due to his arbitrary consumption of the proceeds. As such, the Defendant attempted to forge a specification of transactions in the I’s name and deliver it to G by forging the I’s name as if the proceeds were deposited in the company.

On August 25, 2012, the Defendant, at the PC room where it is difficult to know the trade name in the Guri-si, Siri-si, Siri-si, around 15:00 on August 25, 2012, written a copy of a statement of transactions in the column for inquiry into the specification of transactions using a computer in the column for the supplier name column, “I” in the name of the supplier column, “I” in the name of the representative column, “A” in the name of the representative column, “A” in the name of the person in charge column, “J, K, and 598,00” in the balance column, and then written a copy of the statement of transactions in A4.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a specification of transactions in the name of I, a private document concerning a certificate of fact.

(2) The Defendant at around 18:00 on the same day.