A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

The Defendant, from June 2013 to June 2012 of the same year, has been engaged in the business of the victim C Co., Ltd. (D Co., Ltd.) in the business of the victim C from Jun. 2, 2013 to Jun. 2, 2013.

around June 2013, the Defendant collected KRW 1,852,00 from the store of F Management “G” in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and used the money for personal use, such as entertainment expenses, at the time of Ansan-si.

From around that time to December 3, 2013, the Defendant spent KRW 32,868,492 of the price of the goods, such as the height of the meat, which was kept in business for the company, in total 26 times at the 26 times at the macker in Seoul Metropolitan City, such as the list of crimes, in mind.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the property of the victim who was in custody on duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes confirming the balance of purchase price;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment (in cases where a person engaged in the collection of goods price commits a crime using an opportunity to perform his/her duties and where such person commits a crime using an opportunity to perform such duties, consideration of the poor

1. The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the results of the investigation of the Suwon District Court’s sentencing investigator of the sentencing of the reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and the arguments and records of the instant case, namely, the victim was paid KRW 10,500,000 as the insurance money for fidelity guarantee from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and the victim was paid KRW 6,50,000 as the total amount of KRW 16,50,000 (including remitting KRW 2,00,000 to the victim on September 26, 2014); the Defendant promised to pay KRW 1,50,000 for the remaining amount of damage as the Defendant received monthly salary by finding employment at the present small-scale fixed landing points; and the Defendant promised to pay KRW 1,50,000 for the remaining amount of damage.