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 September 1, 2008 to January 201, 201, the Defendant served as an investor and a person in charge of finance and management in the “Dician Private Teaching Institute” operated by the victim C in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu.

On September 1, 2008, the Defendant received tuition fees of KRW 1,00,00,000 from E who is the student of a private teaching institute from the above photographic Private Teaching Institutes office to the F Bank account (G) account in the name of the Defendant, which is the official account of the private teaching institute, from December 31, 2010, and deposited KRW 942,376,410 in total with the above account under the name of the Defendant, the F Bank account in the name of another official account of the private teaching institute in the name of the Defendant, and the F Bank account in the name of another official account of the private teaching institute (H), the J Bank account in the name of the same Defendant (K), and the same Defendant’s L Bank account (M).

However, the Defendant, by taking advantage of the fact that the victim entrusted the Defendant with the management of funds of the above photographic teaching institute and neglected supervision, used part of the funds of the above private teaching institute to be used for the Defendant’s personal purpose. On October 2, 2008, the Defendant transferred KRW 100,000 from the office of the above private teaching institute to the Defendant’s father N on October 2, 2008 and embezzled KRW 40,761,530 in total over 115 times until December 21, 2010, from that time, from that time to December 21, 2010 as indicated in the

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The second police statement concerning C;

1. Contract and account books of private teaching institutes;

1. A written request for data;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the crime of embezzlement was not established because he used the private teaching institute funds for personal purposes with the consent of the victim who was in a relationship with the victim, and that even without the consent of the victim, the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement because he knew that the victim had consented even without the consent of the victim.

However, the victim consistently permits the defendant to arbitrarily use the funds from the investigative agency to the court.