A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

From June 2015 to September 2015, the Defendant was a person who actually operated “D” by a distribution company located in Busan metropolitan or commercial building 204, Nam-gu, Busan. The Defendant transferred the corporate funds to a customer as if they were normal transaction prices, and received them and received them to be used for the Defendant’s living expenses, repayment of personal obligations, etc., and returned them. On July 2, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the foregoing corporation, deposited the capital deposited in the name of D corporation with the amount of KRW 30 million deposited in the account of D corporation and the amount of money deposited in the name of the customer, while he/she transferred the amount of KRW 30 million to his/her own account in the name of F operated by E, which received them immediately, and voluntarily used them as the Defendant’s credit card payment, from that time to September 10, 2015, and voluntarily withdrawn the amount of money deposited in the name of the Defendant’s personal debt and other expenses for the Defendant’s personal purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police's statement protocol for G and E (including large parts);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about the details of passbook transactions, the table of performance records, the record of agreement, investigation report (Attachment of the details of embezzlement and gold transactions paid to H), and the details of transaction;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be taken into consideration in favor of the people in mind):

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is repeatedly embezzled of company funds, and the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the fact that the nature of the crime is not good, and the amount of damage is not small.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognizes the facts charged and seriously reflects the facts charged, that the defendant has reached a unanimous agreement with the victim, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for two kinds of fines.