A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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

From July 24, 2006, the Defendant served in the manufacturer E (hereinafter “F factory”) of the new launch parts in Busan, which was operated by the victim C (hereinafter “F factory”) from around July 24, 2006, and the victim had the above G factory management directly performed the business of managing the fund as the factory site of the F factory from around that time.

When managing F factories, the Defendant, while receiving a gap in the management of the victim’s company, has been neglected, received the money for goods from the account in the name of the victim to be used for personal use. On April 20, 2009, the Defendant supplied “H” in the above F plant to “H” and received KRW 2 million from the president I of the above H to the national bank account (J) in the name of the Defendant for personal use without the consent of the victim, and embezzled it by receiving KRW 37,260,000 from around that time to March 28, 201 in total by the above method 29 times, as shown in the list of crimes, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. The police statement of K;

1. A copy of a bankbook of a national bank in the name of A, and C;

1. A fact-finding certificate, a statement of E Trading, a fact-finding certificate, and a statement of trading;

1. A statement of E transactions (N), E benefit ledger, and a copy of the attendance ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a copy of books of account, a copy of each note, a book, an investigation report (to hear the Ophone statement of a witness), a transaction record sheet, and a note sheet;

1. Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the amount of selective embezzlement, the nature of the crime, etc.;

1. The defendant alleged that the defendant's assertion of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (in the absence of criminal records that can be specially considered) was only used as a factory operation cost and did not have any personal interest. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the decision is based on the reasoning of the judgment.