A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

From July 2003 to February 18, 2010, the Defendant is an accounting employee at the Seoul Guarantee Insurance E agency operated by the victim D with the three floors of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, who has been engaged in the duties of issuing insurance premiums and insurance policies.

On April 2, 2007, the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn KRW 816,750, which was deposited by the customer F in the account in the name of the victim for the purpose of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Premium, and used it for private purposes such as living expenses.

The Defendant, including that, from around that time to December 31, 2009, embezzled total of KRW 67,023,040 (the total amount stated in this part of the facts charged and in the sum of the list of crimes appears to be a clerical error) for personal use, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 70 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part D in the second examination protocol of the suspect suspect against the accused;

1. Statement made by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to specifications for non-issuance of securities and specifications of transactions;

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

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing) is [the decision of a sentence] Embezzlement 100 million won [the scope of recommending punishment] - April - 1 year and 4 months [the decision of a sentence]: the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime cannot be deemed small: the damage recovery was not fully performed and the circumstances favorable to the fact that the damage was not agreed with the victim: there was no criminal record: the fact that there was no criminal record of a fine or more; the fact that the insurance policy was discharged by issuing an insurance policy according to the purport of the application; the fact that 40 million won out of the embezzled money was paid to the victim after the closing of the argument in this case; and the fact that the victim made efforts to recover part of the damage by paying 4.5