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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an attorney-at-law belonging to the law firm G, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ftel 1001. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant was appointed from the victim H as a litigation agent in relation to the suspension of compulsory execution on real estate owned by the victim, and was engaged in the business of receiving deposit money from the victim to suspend compulsory execution and paying it to the court to suspend compulsory execution.

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 61 million from the injured party to the SC Japan bank account (I) in the name of the Defendant for the suspension of compulsory execution of the said real estate from the injured party, and used it for personal purposes, such as repayment of personal debt, office monthly rent, etc. at that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Complaint;

1. Details of account transactions in the name of the recipient;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (the payment of damages and the confirmation of details of withdrawal);

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] where the mitigated area (one hundred million won or less) [one month or October] [the person subject to special mitigation], or significant damage was restored [the sentence] [the defendant, who is an attorney-at-law who shall handle legal affairs and maintain high trust with the client and perform duties for the public interest, has been deprived of the quality of the crime due to embezzlement of the client's deposit money in violation of the attorney-at-law's duty as an attorney-at-law], the amount equivalent to the damaged amount was restored, and the damaged person does not want the defendant's punishment, and recognized and divided the defendant's mistake, and other circumstances are taken into consideration.