A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, from January 1, 1996 to June 1, 2012, has been engaged in the business division of C, the victim of the damage company in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, as the head of the business division of C, the victim company in Nam-gu.

On April 28, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from F in the Seocho-gu Seoul E-building to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, and was in business custody for the said company, and used it for personal purposes by repaying the principal and interest of the Defendant’s debt from the Japanese Won in Incheon city around that time.

From around that time to May 31, 2012, the Defendant consumed total of KRW 25,509,90 by the same method 17 times at the seat of the city in Incheon, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the victim's property in breach of his occupational duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Reporting on investigation (Submission of a suspect's account transaction statement);

1. Details of transactions with each customer, each letter of individual repayment, and statement of repayment;

1. Application of the transfer certificate, the details of remittance, and the duplicate of passbook (H, I)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Overallly, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. In light of the fact that the amount of damage caused by embezzlement of reasons for sentencing under Articles 32(1) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. of the Dismissal of Application for Compensation Orders is not specified as KRW 25 million, and that there is no effort to recover damage, a sentence of sentence imposed on the defendant is inevitable. However, considering the fact that only the defendant has a criminal record of a fine once, and that the defendant has recovered from damage while against the crime, giving the defendant an opportunity to recover the damage to the maximum extent possible after the sentence of this judgment is rendered, it is determined that it would assist the recovery of damage caused by the victim.