A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From April 2013, the Defendant, as a business employee of the victim C in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, has been engaged in the supply and collection of food, miscellaneous, etc. of the said company.

On May 31, 2013, the Defendant received sales proceeds of KRW 2,00,000,000 from the D’s operating company to the post office account (Account Number E) in the name of the Defendant and kept it for the victim company. Around that time, the Defendant used it for personal purposes, such as living expenses, gambling funds, etc. in the daily community of Daejeon Metropolitan City.

From around that time to April 20, 2017, the Defendant spent the total of KRW 50,495,614, which was kept in business for the victim company, by collecting money from the seat of Daejeon through the same method 106 times a total of 106 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Form.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the current status of deposits in advance, each written confirmation, a statement of transactions in post office accounts, and details of transactions;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

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] Class 1 (100 million won) of the mitigated area (one month to October), [the person subject to special mitigation] of punishment, or where significant damage has been restored [the decision of sentencing] that the defendant initially committed a crime and reflects his mistake. Although the defendant did not recover full damage, the defendant did not repay his best damage, and he paid 108 million won out of the amount of damage. The victim was the defendant's prior wife by agreement with the victim. In addition, various conditions of sentencing are shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances and result of the crime in this case, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, family relationship, intelligence, environment, etc.