Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On November 28, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 6, 2019.

[2019 Highest 5002] Around November 2017, the Defendant was employed by the victim D, who engages in food materials distribution business in the name of “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District B, and was engaged in the business of supplying grain and collecting money for the victim.

On November 14, 2017, the Defendant received 695,000 won as the price of grain from the victim in a “F” restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu and used it for the purpose of personal debt repayment, living expenses, etc. around that time.

From that time until January 11, 2019, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the total of KRW 120,976,700 of the price of grain stored in business for the victim in the same manner as shown in the attached Table 1, such as the list of crimes in attached Table 1.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim in his occupational custody.

[2019 Highest 5519]

1. Around the beginning of December 2018, the Defendant committed a crime against the victim G, which was operated by the victim G in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded that “I will have the victim wrap a rice with a good rice for rice funeral. When purchasing in a large quantity, it can be wraped, which would have been stored in a box, and delivered 10 copies of rice in advance, and 10 copies of rice. It can be purchased in a way that a cash should be supplied.”

However, at the time, the Defendant, while performing rice funeral services, bears approximately KRW 100 million of the debt owed to the bond company, and even if receiving the advance payment from the victim, was thought to be used to repay his/her own debt or to prevent the return of the rice price from other buyers, and there was no intention or ability to receive rice and deliver it to the victim.

The Defendant is the victim.